SPEECH 

OF 

DANIEL  WEBS  T  E  11 , 

IN  REPLY  TO  MR.  HAYNE,  OF  SOUTH  CAROLINA  :  TfiE  RESOLUTION  01- 
FERED  BY  MR.  FOOT,  OF  CONNECTICUT,  RELATIVE  TO  THE  PUBLIC 
LANDS,  BEING  UNDER  CONSIDERATION. 


DELIVERED   IX  THE  SEXATE,  JANUARY  26,  18)0. 


Mr.  President  : 

When  the  mariner  has  been  tossed,  for  many  days,  in  thick  weather,  and  on  an  unknown 
sea,  he  naturally  avails  himself  of  the  first  pause  in  the  storm,  the  earliest  glance  ot  the  sun, 
to  take  his  latitude,  and  ascertain  how  far  the  elements  have,  driven  him  from  his  true  course. 
Let  us  imitate  this  prudence,  and,  before  we  float  farther,  on  the  waves  of  this  debate,  re- 
fer to  the  point  from  which  we  departed,  that  we  may,  at  least,  be  able  to  form  some  con- 
jecture where  we  now  are.    I  ask  for  the  reading-  of  the  resolution. 

[The  Secretary  read  the  resolution  as  follows  : 

"Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Public  Lauds  be  instructed  to  inquire  and  report  the  quantity  of  the 
public  lands  remaining  unsold  within  each  State  and  Territory,  and  whether  it  be  expedient  to  limit,  for  a 
certain  period,  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  to  such  lands  only  as  have  heretofore  been  offered  for.f»le,  and  art 
now  subject  to  entry  at  the  minimum  price.  And,  also,  whether  the  oHice  of  Surveyor-General,  and  some  of  the 
Land  Offices,  may  not  be  abolished,  without  detriment  to  the  public  interest ;  or  whether  it  be  expedient  to 
adopt  measures  to  hasten  the  sales,  and  extend  more  rapidly  the  surveys  of  tin-  public  lamb."] 

We  have  thus  heard,  sir,  what  that  resolution  is,  which  is  actually  submitted  for  our  con- 
sideration ;  and  it  will  readily  occur  to  every  one,  that  it  is  almost  the  only  sub  ject  about  which 
something-  has  not  Been  said  in  the  speech,  running-  through  two  days,  by  which  the  Senate 
has  been  now  entertained  by  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina.  Every  topic  in  the  wide 
rang-e  of  our  public  affaire,  whether  past  or  present — every  thing,  general  or  local,  whether 
belonging  to  national  politics,  or  party  politics,  seems  to  have  attracted  more  or  less  of  the 
honorable  member's  attention,  save  only  the  resolution  before  us.  He  has  spoken  of  every 
thing  but  the  public  lands.  They  have  escaped  his  notice.  To  that  subject,  in  all  his  ex- 
cursions, he  has  not  paid  even  the  cold  respect  of  a  passing  glance. 

When  this  debate,  sir,  was  to  be  resumed,  on  Thursday  morning,  it  so  happened  that  it 
would  have  been  convenient  for  me  to  be  elsewhere.  The  honorable  member,  however, 
did  not  incline  to  put  off  the  discussion  to  another  day.  He  had  a  shot,  he  said,  to  return, 
and  he  wished  to  discharge  it.  That  shot,  sir,  which  it  was  kind  thus  to  inform  us  was  com- 
ing, that  we  might  stand  out  of  the  wa) ,  or  prepare  ourselves  to  fall  before  it,  and  die  with 
decency,  has  now  been  received.  Under  all  advantages,  and  with  expectation  awakened 
by  the  tone  which  preceded  it,  it  has  been  discharged,  and  has  spent  its  force.  It  may  be- 
come me  to  say  no  more  of  its  effect,  than  that,  if  nobody  is  found,  after  all,  either  killed  or 
wounded  by  it,  it  is  not  the  first  time,  in  the  history  of  human  affairs,  that  the  vigor  and  suc- 
cess of  the  war  have  not  quite  come  up  to  the  lofty  and  sounding  phrase  of  the  manifesto.  » 

The  gentleman,  sir,  in  declining  to  postpone  the  debate,  told  the  Senate,  with  the  em- 
phasis of  his  hand  upon  his  heart,  that  there  was  something  rankling  here,  which  he  wished 
to  relieve.  [Mr.  Hatxf.  rose,  and  disclaimed  having  used  the  word  rankling.]  It  would 
not,  Mr.  President,  be  safe  for  the  honorable  member  to  appeal  to  those  around  him,  upon 
the  question,  whether  he  did,  in  fact,  make  use  of  that  word.  But  he  may  have  been  un- 
conscious of  it.  At  any  rate,  it  is  enough  that  he  disclaims  it.  But  stdl,  with  or  without  the 
use  of  that  particular  word,  he  had  yet  something  here,  he  said,  of  which  he  wished  to  rid 
himself  by  an  immediate  reply.  In  this  respect,  sir,  I  hare"*  great  advantage  over  the  honor- 
able gentleman.  There  is  nothing  here,  sir,  which  gives  roe  the  slightest  uneasiness  ;  nei- 
ther fear,  nor  anger,  nor  that  which  is  sometime  more  troublesome  than  either — the  conscious- 
ness of  having  been  in  the  wrong.  There  is  nothing,  either  originating  here,  or  now  received 
here,  by  the  gentleman's  shot.  Nothing  original,  for  I  had  not  the  slightest  feeling  of  disre- 
spect or  unkindness  towards  the  honorable  fjnember.  Some  passages,  it  is  true,  had  occur- 
ed  since  our  acquaintance  in  this  body,  which  I  could  have  wished  might  have  been  other- 
wise ;  but  I  had  used  philosophy  and  forgotten  them.  When  the  honorable  member  rose, 
in  his  first  speech,  I  paid  him  the  respect  of  attentive  listening  ;  and  when  he  sat  down, 
though  surprised,  and,  I  must  say,  even  astonished,  at  some  of  his  opinions,  nothing  was 
farther  from  my  intention  than  to  commence  any  personal  warfare  :  and  through  the  whole 
otthe  few  remarks  I  made  in  answer,  I  avoided,  studiously  and  carefully,  every  thing  which 
1  thought  possible  to  be  construed  into  disrespect.  And,  sir,  while  there  is  thus  nothing 
originating  heret  which  I  wished,  at  any  time,  or  now  wish  to  discharge,  I  must  repeat,  also, 
that  nothing  has  been  received  here  which  rankles,  or,  in  any  way,  gives  me  annoyance.  1 


2 


will  not  accuse  the  honorable  member  of  violating"  the  rules  of  civilized  war.  I  will  not  say 
that  he  poisoned  his  arrows.  But  whether  his  shafts  were,  or  were  not,  dipped  in  that  which 
would  have  caused  rankling,  if  they  had  reached,  there  was  not,  as  it  happened,  quite 
strength  enough  in  the  bow  to  bring  them  to  their  mark.  If  he  wishes  now  to  gather  up 
those  shafts,  he  must  look  for  them  elsewhere  :  they  will  not  be  found  fixed  and  quivering- 
in  the  object  at  which  they  were  aimed. 

The  honorable  member  complained  that  I  had  slept  on  his  speech.  Sir,  I  must  have  slept  on 
it,  or  not  slept  at  all.  The  moment  the  honorable  member  sat  down,  his  friend  from  Mis- 
souri rose,  and,  with  much  honeyed  commendation  of  the  speech,  suggested  that  the  im- 
pressions which  it  had  produced  were  too  charming  and  delightful  to  be  disturbed  by  other 
sentiments,  or  other  sounds,  and  proposed  that  the  Senate  should  adjourn.  Would  it  have 
been  quite  amiable  in  me,  sir,  to  interrupt  this  excellent  good  feeling  ?  Must  I  not  have 
been  absolutely  malicious,  if  I  could  have  thrust  myself  forward,  to  destroy  sensations  thus 
pleasing  ?  Was  it  not  much  better  and  kinder,  both  to  sleep  upon  them  mvself,  and  to  al- 
low others,  also,  the  pleasure  of  sleeping  upon  them  ?  But  if  it  be  meant,  by  sleeping  upon 
his  speech,  that  I  took  time  to  prepare  a  reply  to  it,  it  is  quite  a  mistake  :  owing-  to  other 
engagements,  I  could  not  employ  even  the  interval,  between  the  adjournment  of  the  Senate, 
and  its  meeting  the  next  morning,  in  attention  to  the  subject  of  this  debate.  Nevertheless, 
sir,  the  mere  matter  of  fact  is  undoubtedly  true — I  did  sleep  on  the  gentleman's  speech,  and 
slept  soundly  ;  and  I  slept  equally  well  on  his  speech  of  yesterday,  to  which  I  am  now  re- 
plying. It  is  quite  possible  that,  in  this  respect,  also,  I  possess  some  advantage  over  the 
honorable  member,  attributable,  doubtless,  to  a  cooler  temperament  on  my  part :  fer,  in 
truth,!  slept  upon  his  speeches  remarkably  well.  But  the  gentleman  inquires  why  he  was 
made  the  object  of  such  a  reply  ?  Why  was  he  singled  out  }  If  an  attack  had  been  made 
on  the  East,  he,  he  assures  us,  did  not  begin  it — it  was  the  gentleman  from  Missouri.  Sir, 
I  answered  the  gentleman's  speech,  because  I  happened  to  hear  it ;  and  because,  also,  I 
chose  to  give  an  answer  to  that  speech,  which,  if  unanswered,  I  thought  most  likely  to  pro- 
duce injurious  impressions.  1  did  not  stop  to  inquire  who  was  the  original  drawer  of  the 
bill.  I  found  a  responsible  endorser  before  me,  and  it  was  my  purpose  to  hold  him  liable,and  to 
bring  him  to  his  just  responsibility,  without  delay.  But,  sir,  this  interrogatory  of  the  hon- 
orable member  was  only  introductory  to  another.  He  proceeded  to  ask  me,  whether  I  had 
turned  upon  him,  in  this  debate,  from  the  consciousness  that  I  should  find  an  over-match,  if 
I  ventured  on  a  contest  with  his  friend  from  Missouri.  If,  sir,  the  honorable  member,  ex 
gratia  modeslise,  had  chosen  thus  to  defer  to  his  friend,  and  to  pay  him  a  compliment,  with- 
out intentional  disparagement  to  others,  it  would  have  been  quite  according  to  the  friendly 
courtesies  of  debate,  and  not  at  all  ungrateful  to  my  own  feelings.  I  am  not  one  of  those, 
sir,  who  esteem  any  tribute  of  regard,  whether  light  and  occasional,  or  more  serious  and  deli- 
berate, which  may  be  bestowed  on  others,as  so  much  unjustly  withholden  from  themselves.  But 
the  tone  and  manner  of  the  gentleman's  question,  forbid  me  that  I  thus  Interpret  it.  I  am 
not  at  liberty  to  consider  it  as  nothing  more  than  a  civility  to  his  friend.  It  had  an  air  of 
taunt  and  disparagement,  a  little  of  the  loftiness  of  asserted  superiority,  which  does  not  al- 
low me  to  pass  it  over  v\  ithout  notice.  It  was  put  as  a  question  for  me  to  answer,  and  so 
put,  as  if  it  were  difficult  for  me  to  answer,  whether  I  deemed  the  member  from  Missouri  an 
over-match  for  myself,  in  debate  here.  It  seems  to  me,  sir,  that  this  is  extraordinary  lan- 
guage, and  an  extraordinary  tone,  for  the  discussions  of  this  body. 

Matches  and  over-matches  !  Those  terms  are  more  applicable  elsewhere  than  here,  and  , 
fitter  for  other  assemblies  than  this.  Sir,  the  gentleman  seems  to  forget  where,  and  what, 
we  are.  This  is  a  Senate  ;  a  Senate  of  equals  :  of  men  of  individual  honor  and  personal 
character,  and  of  absolute  independence.  We  know  no  masters  :  we  acknowledge  no  dic- 
tators. This  is  a  Hall  for  mutual  consultation  and  discussion  ;  not  an  arena  for  the  exhibi- 
tion of  champions.  I  offer  myself,  sir,  as  a  match  for  no  man  ;  I  throw  the  challenge  of  de- 
bate at  no  roan's  feet.  But,  then,  sir,  since  the  honorable  member  has  put  the  question,  in  a 
manner  that  calls  for  an  answer,  I  will  give  him  an  answer  ;  and  I  tell  him,  that,  holding  myself 
to  be  the  humblest  of  the  members  here,  I  yet  know  nothing  in  the  arm  of  his  friend  from  Missou- 
ri, either  alone,  or  when  akled  by  the  arm  of  his  friend  from  South  Carolina,  that  need  deter, 
even  me,  from  espousing  whatever  opinions  I  may  choose  to  espouse,from  debating  whenever  I 
may  choose  to  debate,  or  from  speaking  whatever  I  may  see  fit  to  say,  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate. 
Sir,  when  uttered  as  matter  of  commendation  or  compliment,  I  should  dissent  from  nothing 
which  the  honorable  member  might  say  of  his  friend.  Still  less  do  I  put  forth  any  preten- 
sions of  my  own.  But,  when  put  to  me  as  matter  of  taunt,  I  throw  it  back,  and  say  to  the 
gentleman  that  he  could  possibly  have  said  nothing  less  likely  than  such  a  comparison  to  wound 
my  pYide  of  personal  character.  The  anger  of  its  lone  rescued  the  remark  from  intentional 
irony,  which,  otherwise,  probably,  would  have  been  its  general  acceptation.  But,  sir,  if  it 
be  imagined  that,  by  this  mutual  quotation  and  commendation  ;  if  it  be  supposed  that,  by 
casting  the  characters  of  the  drama,  assigning  to  each  his  part:  to  one  the  attaek  ;  to  another 
the  cry  of  onset;  or,  if  it  In-  thought  that  by  a  loud  and  empty  vaunt  of  anticipated  victory, 
anv  laurels  are  to  be  won  here  ;  if  it  he  imagined,  especially,  that  any,  or  all  these  things 
will  shake  any  purpose  of  mine,  I  can  tell  the  honorable  member,  once  for  all,  that  he  is 
greatly  mistaken,  and  that  he  is  dealing  with  one  of  whose  temper  and  character  lie  has 
yet  much  to  learn.  Sir,  I  shall  not  allow  myself,  on  this  occasion,  I  hope  on  no  occasion, 
to  be  betrayed  into  any  loss  of  temper  ;  but,  if  provoked,  as  I  trust  I  never  shall  be,  into 
crimination  and  recrimination,  the  honorable  member  may,  perhaps,  find,  that,  in  that  con- 


test,  there  will  be  blows  to  take  as  well  as  blow  s  to  rive  |  that  others  can  state  comparisons 
as  significant,  at  least,  as  his  own,  and  that  his  impunity  may,  perhaps,  demand  of  him  what- 
ever powers  of  taunt  and  sarcasm  he  may  possess.  I  commend  him  to  a  prudent  husbandry 
of  his  resources. 

But,  sir,  the  Coalition  !  The  Coalition  !  Ave,  "  the  murdered  Coalition!"  The  gentle- 
man asks,  if  I  were  led,  or  frighted,  into  this  debate  by  the  spectre  of  the  Coalition — '*  was  it 
the  ghost  of  the  murdered  Coalition,"  he  exclaims,  M  which  haunted  the  member  from  Mas- 
sachusetts ;  and  which,  like  the  ghost  of  Banquo,  would  never  down  }"  "  The  murdered 
Coalition!"  Sir,  this  charge  of  a  coalition,  in  reference  to  the  late  Administration,  is  not 
original  with  the  honorable  member.  It  did  not  spring  up  in  the  Senate.  Whether  as  a 
fact,  as  an  argument,  or  as  an  embellishment,  it  is  all  borrowed.  He  adopts  it,  indeed,  from 
a  very  low  origin,  and  a  still  lower  present  condition.  It  is  one  of  the  thousand  calumnies 
with  which  the  press  teemed,  during  an  excited  political  canvass.  It  was  a  charge,  of  which 
there  was  not  only  no  proof  or  probability,  but  which  was,  in  itself,  wholly  impossible  to  be 
true.  No  man  of  common  information  ever  believed  a  syllable  of  it.  Yet  it  was  of  that  class 
of  falsehoods,  which,  by  continued  repetition,  through  all  the  organs  of  detraction  and 
abuse,  are  capable  of  misleading  those  who  are  already  far  misled,  and  of  further  fanning 
passions,  already  kindling  into  flame.  Doubtless,  it  served  in  its  day,  and,  in  greater  or 
less  degree,  the  end  designed  by  it.  Having  done  that,  it  has  sunk  into  the  general  mass  of 
stale  and  loathed  calumnies.  It  is  the  very  cast-oft*  slough  of  a  polluted  and  shameless  press. 
Incapable  of  further  mischief,  it  lies  in  the  sewer,  lifeless  and  despised.  It  is  not  now,  sir, 
in  the  power  of  the  honorable  member  to  give  it  dignity  or  decency,  by  attempting  to 
elevate  it,  and  to  introduce  it  into  the  Senate.  He  cannot  change  it  from  what  it  is,  an  ob- 
ject of  general  disgust  and  scorn.  On  the  contrary,  the  contact,  if  he  choose  to  touch  it, 
is  more  likely  to  drag  him  down,  down,  to  the  place  where  it  lies  itself. 

But,  sir,  the  honorable  member  was  not,  for  other  reasons,  entirely  happy  in  his  allusion 
to  the  story  of  Banquo's  murder,  and  Banquo's  ghost.  It  was  not,  I  think,  the  friends, 
but  the  enemies  of  the  murdered  Banquo,  at  whose  bidding  his  spirit  would  not  down. 
The  honorable  gentleman  is  fresh  in  his  reading  of  the  English  classics,  and  can  put  me 
right,  if  I  am  wrong  ;  but,  according  to  my  poor  recollection,  it  was  at  those  who  had  begun 
with  caresses,  and  ended  with  foul  and  treacherous  murder,  that  the  gory  locks  were  shaken! 
The  ghost  of  Banquo,  like  that  of  Hamlet,  was  an  honest  ghost.  It  disturbed  no  innocent 
man.  It  knew  where  its  appearance  would  strike  terror,  and  who  would  cry  out,  a  ghost  ! 
it  made  itself  visible  in  the  right  quarter,  and  compelled  the  guilty,  and  the  conscience- 
smitten,  and  none  others,  to  start,  with, 

"  Pr'ythee,  see  there  !  behold  !— look  !  lo 

"If  I  stand  here,  I  saw  him  !" 

Their  eye  balls  were  seared  (was  it  not  so,  sir  ?)  who  had  thought  to  shield  themselves,  by 
concealing  their  own  hand,  and  laying  the  imputation  of  the  crime  on  a  low  and  hireling 
agency  in  wickedness  ;  who  had  vainly  attempted  to  stifle  the  workings  of  their  own  cow- 
ard consciences,  by  ejaculating  through  white  lips  and  chattering  teeth,  "thou  canst  not 
say  I  did  it  !"  I  have  misread  the  great  poet,  if  it  was  those  who  had  no  way  partaken  in 
the  deed  of  the  death,  who  either  found  that  they  were,  or  J  eared  ifuit  they  should  be,  pushed 
from  their  stools  by  the  ghost  of  the  slain,  or  who  exclaimed,  to  a  spectre  created  by  their 
own  fears,  and  their  own  remorse,  "  avaunt  !  and  quit  our  sight  !" 

There  is  another  particular,  sir,  in  which  the  honorable  member's  quick  perception  of  re- 
semblances might,  I  should  think,  have  seen  something  in  the  story  of  Banquo,  making 
it  not  aPogether  a  subject  of  the  most  pleasant  contemplation.  Those  who  murdered  Ban- 
quo,  what  did  they  win  by  it  ?  Substantial  good  ?  Permanent  power  }  Or  disappointment 
rather,  and  sore  mortification  dust  and  ashes — the  common  fate  of  vaulting  ambition,  over- 
leaping itself  ?  Did  not  even-handed  justice  ere  long  commend  the  poisoned  chalice  to  their 
own  lips  >  Did  they  not  soon  find  that  for  another  they  had  "  filed  their  mind  ?"  that  their 
ambition,  though  apparently  for  the  moment  successful,  had  but  put  a  barren  sceptre  in 
their  grasp  ?    Aye,  sir, 

"A  barren  sceptre  in  their  gripe, 

"  Thence  tu  be  -crenched  by  an  unlhu  al  hand, 

"  .Vo  tin  nj  t/urir't  succeeding." 

Sir,  I  need  pursue  the  allusion  no  farther.  I  leave  the  honorable  gentleman  to  run  it  out 
at  his  leisure,  and  to  derive  from  it  all  the  gratification  it  is  calculated  to  administer.  If  he 
finds  himself  pleased  with  the  associations,  and  prepared  to  be  quite  satisfied,  though  the 
parallel  should  be  entirely  completed,  I  had  almost  said  1  am  satisfied,  also — but  that  I  shall 
think  of.    Yes,  sir,  I  will  think  of  that. 

In  the  course  of  my  observations,  the  other  day,  Mr.  President,  1  paid  a  passing  tribute  of 
respect  to  a  very  worthy  man,  Mr.  Dane,  of  Massachusetts.  It  so  happened  that  he  drew 
the  ordinance  of  1787,  for  the  government  of  the  Northwestern  Territory.  A  man  of  so 
much  ability,  and  so  little  pretence  ;  of  so  great  a  capacity  to  do  good,  and  so  unmixed  a 
disposition  to  do  it,  for  its  own  sake  ;  a  gentleman  who  acted  an  important  part,  forty 
years  ago,  in  a  measure,  the  influence  of  which  is  still  deeply  felt  in  the  very  ^matter  which 
was  the  subject  of  debate,  might,  I  thought,  receive  from  me  a  commendatory  recognition. 

But  the  honorable  member  was  inclined  to  be  facetious  on  the  subject.  lie  was  rather 
disposed  to  make  it  matter  of  ridicule,  that  I  had  introduced  into  the  debate  the  name  of  one 
Nuthan  Dane,  of  whom,  he  assures  us,  he  had  never  before  heard.  Sir,  if  the  honorable 
member  had  never  before  heard  of  Mr.  Dane,  I  am  sorry  for  it   It  shows  him  less  acquainted 


VTERY 


4 


with  the  public  men  of  the  country,  than  I  had  supposed.  Let 'me  tell  him,  however,  that  a 
sneer  from  him,  at  the  mention  of  the  name  of  Mr.  Dane,  is  in  bad  taste.  It  may  well  be  a 
high  mark  of  ambition,  sir,  either  with  the  honorable  gentleman,  or  myself,  to  accomplish  as 
much  to  make  our  names  known  to  advantage,  and  remembered  with  gratitude,  as  Mr.  Dane 
has  accomplished.  But  the  truth  is,  sir,  T  suspect  that  Mr.  Dane  lives  a  little  too  far  North, 
lie  is  of  Massachusetts,  and  too  near  the  North  star,  to  be  reached  by  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman's telescope.  If  his  sphere  had  happened  to  range  South  of  Mason's  and  Dixon's  line, 
he  might,  probably,  have  come  within  the  scope  of  his  vision  ! 

I  spoke,  sir,  of  the  ordinance  of  1787,  which  prohibited  slavery,  in  all  future  times,  North- 
west of  the  Ohio,  as  a  measure  of  great  wisdom  and  foresight;  and  one  which  had  been  attend- 
ed with  highly  beneficialand  permanent  consequences.  I  supposed,  that,  on  this  point,  no 
two  gentlemen  in  the  Senate  could  entertain  different  opinions.  But,  the  simple  expression 
of  this  sentiment  has  led  the  gentleman,  not  only  into  a  labored  defence  of  slavery,  in  the  ab- 
stract, and  on  principle,  but,  also,  into  a  warm  accusation  against  me,  as  having  attacked 
the  system  of  domestic  slavery,  now  existing  in  the  Southern  States.  For  all  this,  there  was 
not  the  slightest  foundation,  in  any  thing  said  or  intimated  by  me.  I  did  not  utter  a  single 
word,  which  any  ingenuity  could  torture  into  an  attack  on  the  slavery  of  the  South.  I  said, 
only,  that  it  was  highly  wise  and  useful  in  legislating  for  the  northwestern  country,  while  it 
was  yet  a  wilderness,  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slaves  :  and  added,  that,  I  presumed,  in 
the  neighboring  State  of  Kentucky,  there  wras  no  reflecting  and  intelligent  gentleman,  who 
would  doubt,  that  if  the  same  prohibition  had  been  extended,  at  the  same  early  period,  over 
that  commonwealth,  her  strength  and  population  would,  at  this  day,  have  been  far  greater 
than  they  are.  If  these  opinions  be  thought  doubtful,  they  are,  nevertheless,  I  trust,  neither 
extraordinary  nor  disrespectful.  They  attack  nobody,  and  menace  nobody.  And  yet,  sir, 
the  gentleman's  optics  have  discovered,  even  in  the  mere  expression  of  this  sentiment,  what 
he.  calls  the  very  spirit  of  the  Missouri  question  !  He  represents  me  as  making  an  onset  on 
the  whole  South,  and  manifesting  a  spirit  which  would  interfere  with,  and  disturb  their 
domestic  condition  !  Sir,  this  injustice  no  otherwise  surprises  me,  than  as  it  is  done  here, 
and  done  without  the  slightest  pretence  of  ground  for  it.  I  say  it  only  surprises  me,  as  being 
done  here  :  for  I  know,  full  well,  that  it  is,  and  has  been,  the  settled  policy  of  some  per- 
sons in  the  South,  for  years,  to  represent  the  people  of  the  North  as  disposed  to  interfere 
with  them,  in  their  own  exclusive  and  peculiar  concerns.  This  is  a  delicate  and  sensitive 
point,  in  southern  feeling  ;  and,  of  late  years,  it  has  always  been  touched,  and  generally 
with  effect, -whenever  the  object  has  been  to  unite  the  whole  South  against  northern  men, 
or  northern  measures.  This  feeling,  always  carefully  kept  alive,  and  maintained  at  too  in- 
tense a  heat  to  admit  discrimination  or  reflection,  is  a  lever  of  great  power  in  our  political 
machine.  It  moves  vast  bodies,  and  gives  to  them  one  and  the  same  direction.  But  the 
feeling  i.-s  without  all  adequate  cause,  and  the  suspicion  which  exists  wholly  groundless. 
There  is  not,  and  never  has  been,  a  disposition  in  the  North  to  interfere  with  these  interests 
of  the  South.  Such  interference  has  never  been  supposed  to  be  within  the  power  of 
Government;  nor  has  it  been,  in  any  way,  attempted.  It  lias  always  been  regarded  as  a  mat- 
ter of  domestic  policy,  left  with  the  States  themselves,  and  with  which  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment had  nothing  to  do.  Certainly,  sir,  I  am,  and  ever  have  been  of  that  opinion.  The 
gentleman,  indeed,  argues  that  slavery,  in  the  abstract,  is  no  evil.  Most  assuredly,  I  need 
not  say  I  differ  with  him,  altogether  and  most  widely,  on  that  point.  I  regard  domestic 
slavery  as  one  of  the  greatest  of  evils,  both  moral  and  political.  But,  though  it  be  a  malady, 
and  whether  it  be  curable,  and  if  so,  by  what  means  ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  whether  it  be 
the  vubius  immedicabile  of  the  social  system,  I  leave  it  to  those  whose  right  and  duty  it  is 
to  inquire  and  to  decide.  And  this  I  believe,  sir,  is,  and  uniformly  has  been,  the  sentiment 
of  the  North .    Let  us  look  a  little  at  the  history  of  this  matter. 

When  the  present  Constitution  was  submitted  for  the  ratification  of  the  People,  there 
were  those  who  imagined  that  the  powers  of  the  Government  which  it  proposed  to  establish, 
might,  perhaps,  in  some  possible  mode,  be  exerted  in  measures  tending  to  the  abolition  of 
slavery.  This  suggestion  would,  of  course,  attract  much  attention  in  the  Southern  Conven- 
tions.   In  that  of  Virginia,  Governor  Randolph  said  : 

11 1  hope  there  is  none  here,  who,  considering  the  subject  in  the  calm  light  of  philosophy, 
"will  make  an  objection  dishonorable  to  Virginia — that  at  the  moment  they  are  securing 
"  the  rights  of  their  citizens,  an  objection  is  started,  that  there  is  a  spark  of  hope,  that  those 
"  unfortunate  men  now  held  in  bondage,  may,  by  the  operation  of  the  General  Government, 
"  be  made  free." 

At  the  very  first  Congress,  petitions  on  the  subject  were  presented,  if  I  mistake  not, 
from  several  States.  The  Pennsylvania  Society  for  promoting  the  Abolition  of  Slavery, 
took  a  lead,  and  laid  before  Congress  a  memorial,  praying  Congress  to  promote  the  aboli- 
tion by  such  powers  as  it  possessed.  This  memorial  was  referred,  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, to  a  Select  Committee,  consisting  of  Mr.  Foster,  of  New  Hampshire,  Mr.  Ger- 
ry, of  Massachusetts,  Mr.  Huntington,  of  Connecticut,  Mr.  Lawrence,  of  New  York,  Mr. 
Sinnickson,  of  New  Jersey,  Mr.  Hartley,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Mr.  Parker,  of  Virginia — 
all  of  them,  sir,  as  you  will  observe,  Northern  men,  but  the  last.  This  Committee  made  a 
report,  which  was  committed  to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  House,  and  there  considered 
and  discussed  on  several  days  ;  and  being  amended,  although  in  no  material  respect,  it  was 
made  to  express  three  distinct  propositions,  on  the  subjects  of  Slavery  and  the  Slave  Trade. 
First,  in  the  words  of  the  Constitution  j  that  Congress  could  not,  prior  to  the  year  1803, 


prohibit  the  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  Stales,  then  existing, 
should  think  proper  to  "admit.  Second,  that  Congress  had  authority  to  restrain  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States  from  earning  on  the  African  Slave  Trade,  for  the  purpose  of  supply- 
ing foreign  countries.  On  this  proposition,  dur  early  law  *  against  those  who  engage  in 
that  traffic  are  founded.  The  third  proposition,  and  that  which  bears  gn  the  present  ques- 
tion, w  as  expressed  in  the  following  terms  : 

'<  Resolved,  That  Congress  have  no  authority  to  interfere  in  the  emancipation  of  slaves,  or 
"in  the  treatment  of  them,  in  any  of  the  States  ;  it  remaining  with  the  several  States,  alone, 
"to  provide  rules  and  regulations  therein,  which  humanity  and  true  policy  may  require." 

This  resolution  received  the  sanction  of  the  House  of  Representatives  so  early  as  March, 
1790.  And  now,  sir,  the  honorable  member  will  allow  me  to  remind  him,  that  not  only  were 
the  Select  Committee  who  reported  the  resolution,  with  a  single  exception,  all  Northern 
men,  but  also  that  of  the  members  then  composing  the  House  of  Representatives,  a  large 
majority,  I  believe  nearly  two-thirds,  were  Northern  men  also. 

The  House  agreed  to  insert  these  resolutions  in  its  journal  ;  and  from  tluit  day  to  this,  it 
has  never  been  maintained  or  contended,  that  Congress  had  any  authority  to  regulate,  or 
interfere  with,  the  condition  of  slaves,  in  the  several  States.  No  Northern  gentleman,  to 
my  knowledge,  has  moved  any  such  question  in  either  House  of  Congress. 

The  fears  of  the  South,  whatever  fears  they  might  have  entertained,  were  allayed  and 
quieted  by  this  early  decision;  and  so  remained,  till  they  were  excited  afresh,  without 
cause,  but  for  collateral  and  indirect  purposes.  When  it  becomes  necessary,  or  was  thought 
so,  by  some  political  persons,  to  find  an  unvarying  ground  for  the  exclusion  of  Northern 
men  from  confidence  and  from  lead  in  the  affairs  of  the  Republic,  then,  and  not  till  then, 
the  cry  was  raised,  and  the  feeling  industriously  excited,  that  the  influence  of  Northern 
men  in  the  public  councils,  would  endanger  the  relation  of  master  and  slave.  For  myself, 
1  claim  no  other  merit,  than  that  this  gross  and  enormous  injustice  towards  the  whole  North, 
has  not  wrought  upon  me  to  change  mv  opinions,  or  my  political  conduct.  I  hope  I  am 
above  violating  my  principles,  even  under  the  smart  of  injury  and  false  imputations.  Unjust 
suspicions  and  undeserved  reproach,  whatever  pain  I  may  experience  from  them,  will  not 
induce  me,  I  trust,  nevertheless,  to  overstep  the  limits  of  constitutional  duty,  or  to  encroach 
on  the  rights  of  others.  The  domestic  slavery  of  the  South  I  leave  where  I  find  it — in  the 
hands  of  their  own  Governments.  It  is  their  affair,  not  mine.  Nor  do  I  complain  of  the 
peculiar  effect  which  the  magnitude  of  that  population  has  had  in  the  distribution  of  power, 
under  this  Federal  Government.  We  know,  sir,  that  the  representation  of  the  States  in 
the  otl.-jr  House  is  not  equal.  We  know  that  great  advantage,  in  that  respect,  is  enjoyed 
by  the  slave-holding-  States;  and  we  know,  too,  that  the  intended  equivalent  for  that  advan- 
tage, that  is  to  say,  the  imposition  of  direct  taxes  in  the  same  ratio,  has  become  merely 
nominal ;  the  habit  of  the  Government  being  almost  invariably  to  collect  its  revenues  from 
other  sources,  arid  in  other  modes.  Nevertheless,  I  do  not  complain  :  nor  would  I  coun- 
tenance any  movement  to  alter  this  arrangement  of  representation.  It  is  the  original  bar- 
gain—the  compact— let  it  standi  let  the  advantage  of  it  be  fully  enjoyed.  The  Union 
itself  is  too  full  of  benefit  to  be  hazarded  in  propositions  for  changing  its  original  basis.  I 
go  {or  the  Constitution  as  it  is,  and  for  the  Union  as  it  is.  But  I  am  resolved  not  to  submit, 
in  silence,  to  accusations,  either  against  myself  individually,  or  against  the  North,  wholly 
unfounded  and  unjust :  accusations  which  impute  to  us  a  disposition  to  evade  the  constitu- 
tional compact,  and  to  extend  the  power  of  the  Government  over  the  internal  laws  and 
domestic  condition  of  the  States.  All  such  accusations,  w  herever  and  whenever  made— all 
insinuations  of  the  existence  of  any  such  purposes,  I  know,  and  feel,  to  be  groundless  and 
injurious.  And  we  must  confide  in  Southern  gentlemen  themselves  ;  we  must  trust  to 
those  whose  integrity  of  heart  and  magnanimity  of  feeling  will  lead  them  to  a  desire  to 
maintain  and  disseminate  truth,  and  who  possess  the  means  of  its  diffusion  with  the  South-  , 
em  public  ;  we  must  leave  it  to  them  to  disabuse  that  public  of  its  prejudices.  But,  ih  the  ' 
mean  time,  for  my  own  part,  I  shall  continue  to  act  justly,  whether  those  towards  whom 
justice  is  exercised  receive  it  with  candor  or  with  contumely. 

Having  had  occasion  to  recur  to  the  ordinance  of  1787,  in"  order  to  defend  myself  against 
the  inferences  which  the  honorable  member  has  chosen  to  draw  from  my  former  observa- 
tions on  that  subject,  I  am  not  willing,  now,  entirely  to  take  leave  of  it,  without  another 
remark.  4t  need  hardly  be  said,  that  that  paper  expresses  just  sentiments  on  the  great 
subject  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  Such  sentiments  were  common,  and  abound  in  all 
our  state  papers  of  that  day.  Rut  this  ordinance  did  that  which  w  as  not  so  common,  and 
which  is  not,  even  now,  universal  ;  that  is,  it  set  forth  and  declared,  as  a  kigk  and  binding 
duty  nf  Government  tit clj\  the  obligation  to  encourage  schools,  and  advance  the  means  of  educa- 
tion ;  on  the  plain  reason,  that  religion,  morality,  and  know  ledge,  are  necessary  to  good  go- 
vernment, and  to  the  happiness  of  mankind.  One  observation  further.  The  important  provi- 
sion incorporated  into  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  seviral  of  those  of  the 
States,  and  recently,  as  we  have  seen,  adopted  into  the  reformed  Constitution  of  Virginia, 
restraining  legislative  power,  in  questions  of  private  right,  and  from  impairing  the  obliga- 
tion of  contracts,  is  first  introduced  and  established,  as  far  as  I  am  informed,  as  matter  of 
express  written  constitutional  law,  in  this  ordinance  of  1787.  And  1  must  add,  also,  in 
regard  to  the  author  of  the  ordinance,  who  has  not  had  the  happiness  to  attract  the  gentle- 
man's notice^heretofore,  nor  to  avoid  his  sarcasm  now,  that  he  was  Chairman  of  that  Select 
Committee  of  the  old  Congress,  w  hose  report  first  expressed  the  strong  sense  of  that  body, 


6 


that  the  old  Confederation  was  not  adequate  to  the  exigencies  of  the  country,  and  recom- 
mending to  the  States  to  send  Delegates  to  the  Convention  which  formed  the  present  Con- 
stitution.— Note  1. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  transfer,  from  the  North  to  the  South,  the  honor  of  thio- 
exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  Northwestern  territory.  The  journal,  without  argument  or 
comment,  refutes  such  attempt.  The  cession  by  Virginia  was  made,  March,  1784.  On  the 
19th  of  April  following,  a  committee,  consisting  of  Messrs.  Jefferson,  Chase,  and  Howell, 
reported  a  plan  for  a  temporary  government  of  the  territory,  in  which  was  this  article  : 
*«  That,  after  the  year  1800,  there  shall  be  neither  slavery,  nor  involuntary  servitude  in  any 
"  of  the  said  States,  otherwise  than  in  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shaO  have 
"  been  convicted."  Mr.  Spaight,  of  North  Carolina,  moved  to  strike  out  this  paragraph . 
The  question  was  put,  according  to  the  form  then  practised  .  "  Shall  these  words  stand,  as 
**  part  of  the  plan,"  &c.  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania — seven  States,  voted  in  the  affirmative.  Maryland.* 
Virginia,  and  South  Carolina,  in  the  negative.  North  Carolina  was  divided.  As  the  con-1 
sent  of  nine  States  was  necessary,  the  words  could  not  stand,  and  were  struck  out  accord- 
ingly.   Mr.  Jefferson  voted  for  the  clause,  but  was  overruled  by  his  colleagues. 

In  March  of  the  next  year,  (1785.)  Mr.  King,  of  Massachusetts,  seconded  by  Mr.  Ellery, 
of  Rhode  Island,  proposed  the  formerly  rejected  article,  with  this  addition — "And  that  this 
regulation  shall  be  an  article  of  compact,  and  remain  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  Constitu- 
tions between  the  thirteen  original  Slates,  and  each  of  the  Slates  described  in  thi  Resolve"  &c 
On  this  clause,  which  provided  the  adequate  and  thorough  security,  the  eight  Northern 
States  at  that  time  voted  affirmatively,  and  the  four  Southern  States  negatively.  The  votes 
of  nine  States  were  not  yet  obtained,  and  thus,  the  provision  was  again  rejected  by  the 
Southern  States.  The  perseverance  of  the  North  held  out,  and  two  years  afterwards  the 
object  was  attained.  It  is  no  derogation  from  the  credit,  whatever  that  may  be,  of  drawing 
the  ordinance,  that  its  principles  had  before  been  prepared  and  discussed,  in  the  form  of 
Resolutions.  If  one  should  reason  in  that  way,  what  would  become  of  the  distinguished 
honor  of  the  Author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  I  There  is  not  a  sentiment  in  that 
paper  which  had  not  been  voted  and  resolved  in  the  assemblies,  and  other  popular  bodies 
in  the  country,  over  and  over  again. 

But  the  honorable  member  has  now  found  out  that  this  gentleman  (Mr.  Dane)  was  a 
member  of  the  Hartford  Convention.  However  uninformed  the  honorable  member  may 
be  of  characters  and  occurrences  at  the  North,  it  would  seem  that  he  has  at  his  elbow,  on, 
this  occasion,  some  high-minded  and  lofty  spirit,  some  magnanimous  and  true-hearted  moni- 
tor, possessing  the  means  of  local  knowledge,  and  ready  to  supply  the  honorable  member 
with  every  thing,  down  even  to  forgotten  and  moth-eaten  two-penny  pamphlets,  which  may 
be  used  to  the  disadvantage  of  his  own  country.  But,  as  to  the  Hartford  Convention,  siiv 
allow  me  to  say,  that  the  proceedings  of  that  body  seem,  now,  to  be  less  read  and  studied 
in  New  England,  than  farther  South.  They  appear  to  be  looked  to,  not  in  New  England,, 
but  elsewhere,  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  how  far  they  may  serve  as  a  precedent.  But  they 
will  not  answer  the  purpose — they  are  quite  too  tame.  Ifie  latitude  in  which  they  origi- 
nated was  too  cold.  Other  conventions,  of  more  recent  existence,  have  gone  a  whole  bar's, 
length  beyond  it.  The  learned  doctors  of  Colleton  and  Abbeville  have  pushed  their  com- 
mentaries on  the  Hartford  Collect  so  far,  that  the  original  text-writers  are  thrown  entirely 
into  the  shade.  I  have  nothing  to  do,  sir,  with  the  Hartford  Convention.  Its  Journal,  which* 
the  gentleman  has  quoted,  I  never  read.  So  far  as  the  honorable  member  may  discover 
iri  its  proceedings  a  spirit,  in  any  degree  resembling  that  which  was  avowed  and  justified 
in  these  other  Conventions  to  which  I  have  alluded,  or  so  far  as  those  proceedings  can  be 
shown  to  be  disloyal  to  the  Constitution,  or  tending  to  disunion,  so  far  I  shall  be  as  ready  as, 
any  one  to  bestow  on  them  reprehension  and  censure. 

Having  dwelt  long  on  this  Convention,  and  other  occurrences  of  that  day,  in  the  hope, 
probably,  (which  will  not  be  gratified)  that  I  should  leave  the  course  of  this  debate  to  follow 
him,  at  length,  in  those  excursions,  the  honorable  member  returned,  and  attempted  another 
object.  He  referred  to  a  speech  of  mine,  in  the  other  House,  the  same  which  I  had  occasion 
to  allude  to  myself  the  other  day  ;  and  has  quoted  a  passage  or  two  from  it,  with  a  bold, 
though  uneasy  and  laboring  air  of  confidence,  as  if  he  had  detected  in  me  an  inconsistency. 
Judging  from  the  gentleman's  manner,  a  stranger  to  the  course  of  the  debate,  and  to  the 
point  in  discussion,  would  have  imagined,  from  so  triumphant  a  tone,  that  the  honorable  mem- 
ber was  about  to  overwhelm  me  with  a  manifest  contradiction.  'Any  one  who  heard  him, 
and  who  had  not  heard  what  I  had,  in  fact,  previously  ,said,  must  have  thought  me  routed 
and  discomfited,  as  the  gentleman  had  promised.  Sir,  a  breath  blows  all  this  triumph  away. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  difference  in  the  sentiments  of  my  remarks  on  the  two  occasions. 
What  I  said  here  on  Wednesday,  is  in  exact  accordance  with  the  opinions  expressed  by  me 
in  the  other  House  in  1825.  Though  the  gentleman  had  the  metaphysics  of  Hudibras— though 
he  were  able 

«  To  sever  and  divide 

"A  hair  'twixt  North  and  Northwest  side,1' 

he  yet  could  not  insert  his  metaphysical  scissors  between  the  fair  reading  of  my  remarks  in 
1825,  and  what  I  said  here  last  week.  There  is  not  only  no  contradiction,  no  difter«jice,  but, 
in  truth,  too  exact  a  similarity,  both  in  thought  and  language,  to  be  entirely  in  ju*t  taste.  I 
had  myself  quoted  the  same  speech  ;  had  recurred  to  it,  and  spoke  with  it  open  before  me  ; 
and  much  oi  what  I  said  was  little  more  than  a  repetition  from  it.    In  order  to  make  finish- 


7 


mg  work  with  this  alleged  contradiction,  permit  me  to  recur  to  the  origin  of  this  debate,  and 
review  its  course.    This  seems  expedient,  and  may  be  done  as  well  now  as  at  any  time. 

Well,  then,  its  history  is  this  :  The  honorable  member  from  Connecticut,  moved  a  resolu- 
tion, which  constitutes  the  ftfst  branch  of  that  which  is  now  before  us  ;  that  is  to  say,  a  reso- 
lution, instructing  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  limiting-, 
for  a  certain  period,  the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  to  such  as  have  heretofore  been  offered 
for  sale  ;  and  whether  sundry  offices,  connected  with  the  sales  of  the  lands,  might  not  be 
abolished,  without  detriment  to  the  public  service. 

In  the  progress  of  the  discussion  which  arose  on  this  resolution,  «n  honorable  member  from 
New  Hampshire  moved  to  amend  the  resolution,  so  as  entirely  to  reverse  its  object ;  that  is,  to 
strike  it  all  out,  and  insert  a  direction  to  the  committee  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of 
adopting  measures  to  hasten  the  sales,  and  extend  more  rapidly  the  surveys  of  the  lands. 

The  honorable  member  from  Maine,  [Mr.  Sprarue,]  suggested  that  both  those  proposi- 
tions might  well  enough  go,  for  conside-ation  to  the  committee  ;  and  in  this  state  of  the  ques- 
tion the  member  from  South  Carolina  addressed  the  Senate  in  his  first  speech.  Fie  rose,  he 
said,  to  give  us  his  own  free  thought  on  the  public  lands.  I  saw  him  rise,  with  pleasure, 
and  listened  with  expectation,  though  before  he  concluded,  I  was  filled  with  surprise.  Cer- 
tainly, I  was  never  more  surprised,  than  to  find  him  following  up,  to  the  extent  he  did,  the 
sentiments  and  opinions,  which  the  gentleman  from  Missouri  had  put  forth,  and  which  it  is 
known  he  has  long  entertained. 

I  need  not  repeat  at  large  the  general  topics  of  the  honorable  gentleman's  speech.  When 
he  said,  yesterday,  that  he  did  not  attack  the  Eastern  States,  he  certainly  must  have  forgotten 
not  only  particular  remarks,  but  the  whole  drift  and  tenor  of  his  speech  ;  unless  he  means,  by 
not  attacking,  that  he  did  not  commence  hostilities — but  that  another  had  preceded  him  in 
the  attack.  He,  in  the  first  place,  disapproved  of  the  whole  course  of  the  Government,  for 
forty  years,  in  regard  to  its  dispositions  of  the  public  land  ;  and  then  turning  northward  and 
eastward,  and  fancying  he  had  found  a  cause  for  alleged  narrowness  and  niggardliness  in  the 
'*  accursed  policy"  of  the  Tariff,  to  which  he  represented  the  people  of  New  England  as 
wedded,  he  went  on,  for  a  full  hour,  with  remarks,  the  whole  scope  of  which  was  to  exhibit 
the  results  of  this  policy,  in  feelings  and  in  measures  unfavorable  to  the  West.  I  thought  his 
opinions  unfounded  and  erroneous,  as  to  the  general  course  of  the  Government,  and  ven- 
tured to  reply  to  them. 

The  gentleman  had  remarked  on  the  analogy  of  other  cases,  and  quoted  the  conduct  of 
European  Governments,  towards  their  own  subjects,  settling  on  this  continent,  as  in  point,  to 
show,  that  we  had  been  harsh  and  rigid  in  selling,  when  we  should  have  given  the  public 
lands  to  settlers.  I  thpught  the  honorable  member  had  suffered  his  judgment  to  be  betrayed 
by  a  false  analogy  ;  that  he  was  struck  with  an  appearance  of  resemblance,  where  there  was 
no  real  similitude.  I  think  so  still.  The  first  settlers  of  North  America  were  enterprising 
spirits,  engaged  in  private  adventure,  or  fleeing  from  tyranny  at  home.  When  arrived  here, 
they  were  forgotten  by  the  mother  country,  or  remembered  only  to  be  oppressed.  Car- 
ried away  again  by  the  appearance  of  analogy,  or  struck  with  the  eloquence  of  the  passage, 
the  honorable  member  yesterday  observed,  that  the  conduct  of  Government  towards  the 
Western  emigrants,  or  my  representation  of  it,  brought  to  his  mind  a  celebrated  speech  in 
the  British  Parliament.  It  was,  sir,  the  speech  of  Col.  Barre.  On  the  question  of  the  stamp 
act,  or  tea  tax,  I  forget  which,  Col.  Barre  had  heard  a  member  on  the  Treasury  Bench  argue, 
that  the  people  of  the  United  States,  being  British  colonists,  planted  by  the  maternal  care, 
nourished  by  the  indulgence,  and  protected  by  the  arms  of  England,  would  not  grudge  their 
mite  to  relieve  the  mother  country  from  the  heavy  burden  under  which  she  groaned. 
The  language  of  Col.  Barre,  in  reply  to  this,  was — They  planted  by  your  care  !  Your  op- 
pression planted  them  in  America.  They  ffed  from  your  tyranny,  and  grew  by  your  neglect 
of  them.  So  soon  as  you  began  to  care  for  them,  you  showed  your  care  by  sending  persons 
to  spy  out  their  liberties,  misrepresent  their  character,  prey  upon  them,  and  eat  out  their 
substance. 

And  now  does  the  honorable  gentleman  mean  to  maintain,  that  language  like  this,  is  appli- 
cable to  the  conduct  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  towards  the  Western  emi- 
grants, or  to  any  representation  given  by  me  of  that  conduct  ?  Were  the  settlers  in  the  West 
driven  thither  by  our  oppression  }  Have  they  flourished  only  by  our  neglect  of  them  ?  Has 
the  Government  done  nothing  but  to  prey  upon  them,  and  cat  out  their  substance  I  Sir,  this 
fervid  eloquence  of  the  British  speaker,  just,  when  and  where  it  was  uttered,  and  fit  to  re- 
main an  exercise  for  the  schools,  is  not  a  little  out  of  place,  when  it  is  brought  thence  to  be 
applied  l»ere,  to  the  conduct  of  our  own  country  towards  her  own  citizens.  From  America 
to  England,  it  may  be  true  ;  from  Americans  to  their  own  Government  it  would  be  strange 
language.  Let  us  leave  it,  to  be  recited  and  declaimed  by  our  boys,  against  a  foreign  nation; 
not  introduce  it  here,  to  recite  and  declaim  ourselves  against  our  own. 

Btlt  I  come  to  the  point  of  the  alleged  contradiction.  In  my  remarks  on  Wednesday,  I  con- 
tended that  we  could  not  give  away  gratuitously  all  the  public  lands  ;  that  we  held  them  in 
t  rust  ;  that  the  Government  had  solemnly  pledged  itself  to  dispose  of  them  as  a  common  fund 
for  thejeommon  benefit,  and  to  sell  and  settle  them  as  its  discretion  should  dictate.  Now,  sir, 
what  contradiction  does  the  gentleman  find  to  this  sentiment,  in  the  speech  of  1825  }  He  quotes 
me  as  having  then  said,  that  we  ought  not  to  hug  these  lands  as  a  very  great  treasure.  Very 
well,  sir,  supposing  me  to  be  accurately  reported,  in  that  expression,  what  is  the  contradic- 
tion 1  I  have  not  now  said  that  wc  should  hug  these  lands  as  a  favorite  source  of  pecuniary 


8 


income.  No  such  thing,  li  is  not  my  view.  What  I  have  said,  and  what  I  do  say,  is,  thaf 
they  are  a  common  fund — to  be  disposed  of  for  the  common  benefit— to  be  sold  at  low  prices 
for  the  accommodation  of  settlers,  keeping-  the  object  of  settling-  the  lands  as  much  in  view, 
as  that  of  raising  nv>ney  from  them.  This  I  say  now,  and  this  I  have  always  said.  Is  this 
hugging  them  as  a  favorite  treasure  ?  Is  there  no  difference  between  hugging  and  hoarding 
this  fund,  on  the  one  hand,  as  a  great  treasure,  and  on  the  other,  of  disposing  of  it  at  low 
prices,  placing  the  proceeds  in  the  general  treasury  of  the  Union  ?  My  opinion  is,  that  as 
much  is  to  be  made  of  the  land,  as  fairly  and  reasonably  may  be,  selling  it  all  the  while  at 
such  rates  as  to  give  the  fullest  effect  to  settlement.  This  is  not  giving  it  all  away  to  the 
States,  as  the  gentleman  would  propose  ;  nor  is  it  hugging  the  fund  closely  and  tenaciously, 
as  a  favorite  treasure  ;  but  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  a  just  and  wise  policy,  perfectly  according 
with  all  the  various  duties  which  rest  on  Government.  So  much  for  my  contradiction.  And 
what  is  it  ?  Where  is  the  ground  of  the  gentleman's  triumph  ?  What  inconsistency,  in  word 
or  doctrine,  has  he  been  able  to  detect  ?  Sir,  if  this  be  a  sample  of  that  discomfiture,  with 
which  the  honorable  gentleman  threatened  me,  commend  me  to  the  word  discomfiture  for 
the  rest  of  my  life. 

But,  after  all,  this  is  not  the  point  of  debate  ;  and  I  must  now  bring  the  gentleman  back 
to  that  which  is  the  point. 

The  real  question  between  me  and  him  is,  where  has  the  doctrine  been  advanced,  at  the 
South  or  the  East,  that  the  population  of  the  West  should  be  retarded,  or  at  least  need  not 
be  hastened,  on  account  of  its  effect  to  drain  off  the  people  from  the  Atlantic  States  ?  Is  this 
doctrine,  as  has  been  alleged,  of  Eastern  origin  ?  That  is  the  question.  Has  the  gentleman 
found  any  thing,  by  which  he  can  make  good  his  accusation  ?  I  submit  to  the  Senate,  that 
he  has  entirely  failed  ;  and  as  far  as  this  debate  has  shown,  the  only  person  who  has  advanced 
such  sentiments,  is  a  gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  and  a  friend  to  the  honorable  member 
himself.  The  honorable  gentleman  has  given  no  answer  to  this  ;  there  is  none  which  can  be 
given.  The  simple  fact,  while  it  requires  no  comment  to  enforce  it,  defies  all.argument  to 
refute  it.  1  could  refer  to  the  speeches  of  another  Southern  gentleman,  in  years  before,  of 
the  same  general  character,  and  to  the  same  effect,  as  that  which  has  been  quoted  ;  but  I  will 
not  consume  the  time  of  the  Senate  by  the  reading  of  them. 

So  then,  sir,  New  England  is  guiltless  of  the  policy  of  retarding  Western  population,  and 
of  all  envy  and  jealousy  of  the  growth  of  the  new  States.  Whatever  there  be  of  that  policy 
in  the  country,  no  part  of  it  is  her's.  If  it  has  a  local  habitation,  the  honorable  member  has 
probably  seen,  by  this  time,  where  he  is  to  look  for  it ;  and  if  it  now  has  received  a  name, 
he  has  himself  christened  it. 

We  approach,  at  length,  sir,  to  a  more  important  part  of  the  honorable  gentleman's  obser- 
vation. Since  it  does  not  accord  with  my  views  of  justice  and  policy  to  give  away  the  public 
lands  altogether,  as  mere  matter  of  gratuity,  I  am  asked  by  the  honorable  gentleman  on  what 
ground  it  is,  that  I  consent  to  vote  them  away,  in  particular  instances  ?  How,  he  inquires,  do 
I  reconcile  with  these  professed  sentiments,  my  support  of  measures  appropriating  portions 
of  the  lands  to  particular  roads,  particular  canals,  particular  improvements  of  rivers,  and  parti- 
cular institutions  of  education  in  the  West  ?  This  leads,  sir,  to  the  real  and  wide  difference,  in 
political  opinion,  between  the  honorable  gentleman  and  myself.  On  my  part,  I  look  upon  all 
these  objects,  as  connected  with  the  common  good,  fairly  embraced  in  its  object  and  its  terms  ; 
he,  on  the  contrary,  deems  them  all,  if  good  at  all,  only  local  good.  This  is  our  difference.  The 
interrogatory  which  he  proceeded  to  put,  at  once  explains  this  difference.  "What  interest,'' 
asks  he,  "  has  South  Carolina  in  a  canal  in  Ohio  ?"  Sir,  this  very  question  is  full  of  signifi- 
cance. It  developes  the  gentleman's  whole  political  system  ;  and  its  answer  expounds  mine. 
Here  we  differ,  iota  ccelo.  I  look  upon  a  road  over  the  Allegany,  a  canal  round  the  Falls  of 
the  Ohio,  or  a  canal  or  rail-way  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Western  waters,  as  being  objects 
large  and  extensive  enough  to  be  fairly  said  to  be  for  the  common  benefit.  The  g-entleman 
thinks  otherwise,  and  this  is  the  key  to  open  his  construction  of  the  powers  of  the  Govern- 
ment. He  may  well  ask,  upon  his  system,  what  interest  has  South  Carolina  in  a  canal  in 
Ohio  ?  On  that  system,  it  is  true,  she  has  no  interest.  On  that  system,  Ohio  and  Carolina  are 
different  Governments,  and  different  countries,  connected  here,  it  is  true,  by  some  slight  and 
ill-defined  bond  of  union,  but,  in  all  main  respects,  separate  and  divers^.  On  that  system, 
Carolina  has  no  more  interest  in  a  canal  in  Ohio  than  in  Mexico.  The  gentleman,  therefore, 
only  follows  out  his  own  principles  ;  he  does  no  more  than  arrive  at  the  natural  conclusions 
of  his  own  doctrines  ;  he  only  announces  the  true  results  of  that  creed,  which  he  has  adopt- 
ed himself,  and  would  persuade  others  to  adopt,  when  he  thus  declares  that  South  Carolina 
has  no  interest  in  a  public  work  in  Ohio.  Sir,  we  harrow-minded  people  of  New  Epgland  do 
not  reason  thus.  Our  notion  of  things  is  entirely  different.  We  look  upon  the  States,  not 
as  separated,  but  as  united.  We  love  to  dwell  on  that  Union,  and  on  the  mutual  happiness 
which  it  has  so  much  promoted,  and  the  common  renown  which  it  has  so  greatly  contributed 
to  acquire.  In  our  contemplation,  Carolina  and  Ohio  are  parts  of  the  same  country  ;  States, 
united  under  the  same  General  Government,  having  interests,  common,  associated,  inter- 
mingled. In  whatever  is  within  the  proper  sphere  of  the  constitutional  power  of  this  Go- 
vernment, we  look  upon  the  Slates  as  one.  We  do  not  impose  geographical  limifs  to  our 
patriotic  feeling  or  regard  ;  we  do  not  follow  rivers  and  mountains,  and  lines  of  latitude,  to 
find  bound  uies,  beyond  which  public  improvements  do  not  benefit  us.  We  who  come  here, 
as  agents  and  representatives  of  these  narrow-minded  and  selfish  men  of  New  England,  con- 
sider ourselves  as  bound  to  regard,  with  equal  eye,  the  good  of  the  whole,  in  whatever  is 


9 


within  <mr  power  of  legislation.  Sir,  it  a  rail-road  or  a  canal,  beginning  in  South  Carolina, 
and  ending  in  South  Carolina,  appeared  to  mc  to  he  of  national  importance  and  national  mag- 
nitude, believing,  as  I  do,  that  the  power  of  Government  extends  to  the  encouragement  of 
works  of  that  description,  if  I  were  to  stand  up  here,  and  ask,  what  interest  has  Massachu- 
setts in  a  rail-road  in  South  Carolina,  1  should  not  be.  willing  to  face  my  constituents.  These 
same  narrow-minded  men  would  tell  mc,  that  they  had  sent  me  to  act  for  the  whole  country, 
and  that  one  who  possessed  too  little  comprehension,  either  of  intellect  or  feeling;  one  who 
was  not  large  enough,  in  mind  and  heart,  to  embrace  the  whole,  was  not  fit  to  be  entrusted 
with  the  interest  of  any  part.  Sir,  I  do  not  desire  to  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  Government, 
by  unjustifiable  construction  ;  nor  to  exercise  any  not  within  a  fair  interpretation.  But  when 
it  is  believed  that  a  power  does  exit,  then  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  to  be  exercised  for  the  ge- 
neral benefit  of  the  whole.  So  far  as  respects  the  exercise  of  such  a  power,  the  States  are 
one.  It  was  the  very  object  of  the  Constitution  to  create  unity  of  interests,  to  the  extent  of 
the  powers  of  the  General  Government.  In  war  and  peace,  we  are  one  ;  in  commerce,  one  ; 
because  the  authority  of  the  General  Government  reaches  to  war  and  peace,  and  to  the  re- 
gulation of  commerce.  I  have  never  seen  nnv  i  ore  difficulty,  in  erecting  light  houses  on  the 
lakes,  than  on  the  ocean;  in  improving  t;ie  narbors  of  inland  seas,  than  if  they  were  within 
the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tide  ;  or  of  removing  obstructions  in  the  vast  streams  of  the  West, 
more  than  in  any  work  to  facilitate  commerce  on  the  Atlantic  coast.  If  there  be  power  for 
one,  there  is  power  also  for  the  other ;  and  they  are  all  and  equally  for  the  country. 

There  are  other  objects,  apparently  more  local,  or  the  benefit  of  which  is  less  general,  to- 
wards which,  nevertheless,  I  have  concurred,  with  others,  to  give  aid,  by  donations  of  land. 
It  is  proposed  to  construct  a  road,  in  or  through  one  of  the  new  States,  in  which  this  Gov- 
ernment possesses  large  quantities  of  land.  Have  the  United  States  no  right,  as  a  great  a.«.d 
untaxed  proprietor,  are  they  under  no  obligation,  to  contribute  to  an  object  thus  calculated 
to  promote  the  common  good  of  all  the  proprietors,  themselves  included  ?  And  even  with 
respect  to  education,  which  is  the  extreme  case,  let  the  question  be  considered.  In  the 
first  place,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  made  matter  of  compact  with  these  States,  that  they 
should  do  their  part  to  promote  education.  In  the  next  place,  our  whole  system  of  land 
laws  proceeds  on  the  idea  that  education  is  for  the  common  good  ;  because,  in  every  divi- 
sion, a  certain  portion  is  uniformly  reserved  and  appropriated  for  the  use  of  schools.  And, 
finally,  have  not  these  new  States  singularly  strong  claims,  founded  on  the  ground  already 
stated,  that  the  Government  is  a  great  untaxed  proprietor,  in  the  ownership  of  the  soil  ?  ft 
is  a  consideration  of  great  importance,  that,  probably,  there  is  in  no  part  of  the  country,  or 
of  the  world,  so  great  call  for  the  means  of  education,  as  in  those  new  States  ;  owing  to  the 
vast  numbers  of  persons  within  those  ages  in  which  education  and  instruction  are  usually 
received,  if  received  at  all.  This  is  the  natural  consequence  of  recency  of  settlement  and 
rapid  increase.  The  census  of  these  States  shows  how  great  a  proportion  of  the  whole 
population  occupies  the  classes  between  infancy  and  manhood.  These  are  the  wide  fields, 
and  here  is  the  deep  and  quick  soil,  for  the  seeds  of  knowledge  and  virtue  ;  and  this  is  the 
favored  season,  the  very  spring-time  for  sowing  them.  Let  them  be  disseminated  without 
stint.  Let  them  be  scattered  with  a  bountiful  broad  cast.  Whatever  the  Government  can 
fairly  do  towards  these  objects,  in  my  opinion,  ought  to  be  done. 

.  These,  sir,  arc  the  grounds,  succinctly  stated,  on  which  my  votes  for  grants  of  lands  for 
particular  objects  rest ;  while  I  maintain,  at  the  same  time,  that  it  is  all  a  common  fund,  for 
the  common  benefit.  And  reasons  like  these,  I  presume,  have  influenced  the  votes  of  other 
gentlemen  from  New  England.  Those  who  have  a  different  view  of  the  powers  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, of  course,  come  to  different  conclusions,  on  these,  as  on  other  questions.  I  observ- 
ed,  when  speaking  on  this  subject  before,  that,  if  we  looked  to  any  measure,  whether  for  a 
road,  a  canal,  or  any  thing  else,  intended  for  the  improvement  of  the  West,  it  would  be 
found,  that,  if  the  New  England  ayes  were  struck  out  of  the  list  of  votes,  the  Southern  noes 
would  always  have  rejected  the  measure.  The  truth  of  this  has  not  been  denied,  and  canno? 
be  denied.  In  stating  this,  1  thought  it  just  to  ascribe  it  to  the  constitutional  scruples  of  the 
South,  rather  than  to  any  other  less  favorable  or  less  charitable  cause.  Hut  no  sooner  had  I 
done  this,  than  the  honorable  gentleman  asks  if  I  reproach  him  and  his  friends  with  their 
constitutional  scruples.  Sir,  I  reproach  nobody — I  stated  a  fact,  and  gave  the  most  respect- 
ful reason  for  it  that  occurred  to  mc.  The  gentleman  cannot  deny  the  fact ;  he  may,  if  he 
choose, disclaim  the  reason.  It  is  not  long  since  I  had  occasion,  in  presenting  a  petition  from 
his  own  State,  to  account  for  its  being  entrusted  to  my  hands,  by  saying,  that  the  constitu- 
tional opinions  of  the  gentleman  ami  his  worthy  colleague,  prevented  them  from  supporting 
it.  Sir,  did  I  state  this  as  matter  of  reproach  I  Far  from  it.  Did  I  attempt  to  find  any  other 
cause  than  an  honest  one,  for  these  scruples  ?  Sir,  I  did  not.  It  did  not  become  mc  to  doubt 
nor  to  insinuate,  that  the  gentleman  had  cither  changed  his  sentiments,  or  that  he  had  made 
up  a  set  of  constitutional  opinions,  accommodated  to  any  particular  combination  of  political 
occurrences.  Had  I  done  so,  I  should  have  felt,  that,  while  1  was  entitled  to  little  credit  in 
thus  questioning  other  people's  motives,  I  justified  the  whole  world  in  s'uspecting  my  own. 
But  how  bus  the  gentleman  returned  this  respect  for  ethers'  opinions  }  His  own  candor  and 
justice,  how  have  they  been  exhibited  towards  the  motives  of  others,  w  hile  he  has  been  at  so 
much  pains  to  maintain,  w  hat  nobody  has  disputed,  the  purity  of  his  own  ?  Why,  sir,  he  has 
asked  when,  and  A<wr,  and  why,  New  England  votes  were  found  going  for  measures  favorable 
to  the  West  !  He  has  demanded  to  be  informed  whether  all  this  did  not  begin  m  1825,  and 
while  the  election  of  I 'resident  was  still  pending  ?  Sir,  to  these  questions  retort  would  be  justi- 


10 


fied  ;  and  it  is  both  cogent,  and  at  hand.  Nevertheless,  I  will  answer  the  inquiry,  not  by  re- 
tort, but  by  facts.  I  will  tell  the  gentleman  when,  and  fioiv,  and  why,  New  England  has 
supported  measures  favorable  to  the  West.  I  have  already  referred  to  the  early  history  of 
the  Government — to  the  first  acquisition  of  the  lands — to  the  original  laws  for  disposing  of 
them,  and  for  governing  the  territories  where  they  lie  ;  and  have  shown  the  influence  of 
New  England  men  and  New  England  principles  in  all  these  leading  measures.  I  should  not 
be  pardoned  were  I  to  go  over  that  ground  again.  Coming  to  more  recent  times,  and  to 
measures  of  a  less  general  character,  I  have  endeavored  to  prove  that  every  thing  of  this 
kind,  designed  for  Western  improvement,  has  depended  on  the  votes  of  New  England  ;  all 
this  is  true  beyond  the  power  of  contradiction. 

And  now,  sir,  there  are  two  measures  to  which  I  will  refer,  not  so  ancient  as  to  belong  to 
the  early  history  of  the  public  lands,  and  not  so  recent  as  to  be  on  this  side  of  the  period 
when  the  gentleman  charitably  imagines  a  new  direction  may  have  been  given  to  New  Eng- 
land feeling  and  New  England  votes.  These  measures,  and  the  New  England  votes  in  sup- 
port of  them,  may  be  taken  as  samples  and  specimens  of  all  the  rest. 

In  1820,  (observe,  Mr.  President,  in  1820,)  the  People  of  the  West  besought  Congress 
for  a  reduotion  in  the  price  of  lands.  In  favor  of  that  reducion,  New  England  with  a  de- 
legation of  forty  members  in  the  other  House,  gave  thirty-three  votes,  and  one  only  against 
it.  The  four  Southern  States,  with  fifty  members,  gave  thirty -two  votes  for  it,  and  seven 
against  it.  Again,  in  1821,  (observe,  again,  sir,  the  time,)  the  law  passed  for  the  relief  of 
the  purchasers  of  the  public  lands.  This  was  a  measure  of  vital  importance  to  the  West, 
and  more  especially  to  the  Southwest.  It  authorized  the  relinquishment  of  contracts  for 
lands,  which  had  been  entered  into  at  high  prices,  and  a  reduction  in  the  other  cases  of 
not  less  than  37^  per  cent,  on  the  purchase  money.  Many  millions  of  dollars — six  or  seven 
I  believe,  at  least,  probably  much  more — were  relinquished  by  this  law.  On  this  bill,  New 
England,  with  her  forty  members,  gave  more  affirmative  votes  than  the  four  Southern 
States,  with  their  fifty -two  or  three  members. 

These  two  are  far  the  most  important  measures  respecting  the  public  lands,  which  have 
been  adopted  within  the  last  twenty  years.  They  took  place  in  1820  and  1821.  That  is 
the  time  when.  And  as  to  the  manner  how,  the  gentleman  already  sees  that,  it  was  by 
voting,  in  solid  column,  for  the  required  relief :  and  lastly,  as  to  the  cause  why,  I  tell  the 
gentleman,  it  was  because  the  members  from  New  England  thought  the  measures  just  and 
salutary  :  because  they  entertained  towards  the  West,  neither  envy,  hatred,  or  malice  ;  be- 
cause they  deemed  it  becoming  them,  as  just  and  enlightened  public  men,  to  meet  the 
exigency  which  had  arisen  in  the  West,  with  the  appropriate  measure  of  relief ;  because 
they  felt  it  due  to  their  own  characters,  and  the  characters  of  their  New  England  predeces- 
sors in  this  Government,  to  act  towards  the  new  States  in  the  spirit  of  a  liberal,  patronizing, 
magnanimous  policy.  So  much,  sir,  for  the  cause  why  ;  and  I  hope  that  by  this  time,  sir, 
the  honorable  gentleman  is  satisfied  ;  if  not,  I  do  not  know  when,  or  how,  or  why,  he  ever 
will  be. 

Having  recurred  to  these  two  important  measures,  in  answer  to  the  gentleman's  inquiries, 
I  must  now  beg  permission  to  go  back  to  a  period  yet  something  earlier,  for  the  purpose  of 
still  further  showing  how  much,  or  rather  how  little,  reason  there  is  for  the  gentleman's  in- 
sinuation, that  political  hopes  or  fears,  or  party  associations,  were  the  grounds  of  these  New 
England  votes.  And  after  what  has  been  saidj  1  hope  it  may  be  forgiven  me,  if  I  allude  to 
some  political  opinions  and  votes  of  my  own,  of  very  little,  public  importance,  certainly,  but 
which,  from  the  time  at  which  they  were  given  and  expressed,  may  pass  for  good  witnesses 
on  this  occasion. 

This  Government,  Mr.  President,  from  its  origin  to  the  peace  of  1815,  had  been  too  much 
engrossed  with  various  other  important  concerns,  to  be  able  to  turn  its  thoughts  inward, 
and  look  to  the  development  of  its  vast  internal  resources.  In  the  early  part  of  President 
Washington's  administration,  it  was  fully  occupied  with  organizing  the  Departments,  provid- 
ing for  the  public  debt,  defending  the  frontiers,  and  maintaining  domestic  peace.  Before  the 
termination  of  that  administration,  the  fires  of  the  French  Revolution  blazed  forth,  as  from 
a  new-opened  volcano,  and  the  whole  breadth  of  the  ocean  did  not  entirely  secure  us  from 
its  effects.  The  smoke  and  the  cinders  reached  us,  though  not  the  burning  lava.  Difficult 
and  agitating  questions,  embarrassing  to  Government,  and  dividing  public  opinion,  sprung 
out  of  the  new  state  of  our  foreign  relations,  and  were  succeeded  by  others,  and  yet  again 
by  others,  equally  embarrassing,  and  equally  exciting  division  and  discord,  through  the  long 
scries  of  twenty  years  j  till  they  finally  issued  in  another  war  with  England.  Down  to  the  close 
of  that  war,  no  distinct,  marked,  and  deliberate  attention  had  been  given,  or  could  have 
been  given,  to  the  internal  condition  of  the  country,  its  capacities  of  improvement,  or  the 
constitutional  power  of  the  Government,  in  regard  to  objects  connected  with  such  improve- 
ment. 

The  peace,  Mr.  President,  brought  about  an  entirely  new,  and  a  most  interesting  state  of 
tilings:  it  opened  to  us  other  prospects,  and  suggested  other  duties.  We  ourselves  were 
changed,  and  the  whole  world  was  changed.  The  pacification  of  Europe,  after  June,  1815, 
assumed  a  firm  and  permanent  aspect.  The  nations  evidently  manifested  that  they  were  dis- 
posed for  peace.  Some  agitation  of  the  waves  might  be  expected,  even  after  the  storm  had 
subsided,  but  the  tendency  was,  strongly  and  rapidly,  towards  settled  repose. 

It  so  happened,  sir,  that  I  was,  at  that  time,  a  member  of  Congress,  and  like  others,  na- 
turally turned  my  attention  to  the  contemplation  of  the  newly  altered  condition  of  the  coun 


\  I 


try,  and  of  the  world.  It  appeared  plainly  enough  to  mc,  as  well  as  to  wiser  and  more  ex- 
perienced men,  that  the  policy  of  the  Government  would  necessarily  take  a  start  in  a 
new  direction  i  because,  new  directions  would  be  given  to  the  pursuits  and  occupations 
of  the  people.  We  had  pushed  our  commerce  far  and  fast,  under  the  advantage  of  a  neutral 
Hag.  Hut  there  were  now  no  longer  flags,  either  neutral  or  belligerent.  The  harvest  of 
neutrality  had  been  great,  but  we  had  gathered  it  all.  With  the  peace  of  Europe,  it  was 
obvious  there  would  spring  up  in  her  circle  of  nations,  a  revived  and  invigorated  spirit  of 
trade,  and  a  new  activity  in  all  the  business  and  objects  of  civilized  life.  Hereafter,  our 
commercial  gains  were  to  be  earned  only  by  success,  in  a  close  and  intense  competition. 
Other  rations  would  produce  for  themselves,  and  carry  for  themselves,  and  manufacture  for 
themselves,  to  the  full  extent  of  their  abilities.  The  crops  of  our  plains  would  no  longer 
sustain  European  armies,  nor  our  ships  longer  supply  those  whom  war  had  rendered  unable 
to  supply  themselves.  It  was  obvious,  that,  under  these  circumstances,  the  country  would 
begin  to" survey  itself,  and  to  estimate  its  own  capacity  of  improvement.  And  this  improve- 
ment— how  was  it  to  be  accomplished,  and  who  was  to  accomplish  it  )  We  were  ten  or 
twelve  millions  of  people,  spread  over  almost  half  a  world.  We  were  twenty-four  States, 
some  stretching  along  the  same  sea-board,  some  along  the  same  line  of  inland  frontier,  and 
others  on  opposite  banks  of  the  same  vast  rivers.  Two  considerations  at  once  presented 
themselves,  at  looking  at  this  state  of  things,  with  great  force.  One  was,  that  that  great 
branch  of  improvement,  which  consisted  in  furnishing  new  facilities  of  intercourse,  neces- 
sarily ran  into  different  States,  in  every  leading  instance,  and  would  benefit  the  citizens  of  all 
such  States.  No  oiie  State,  therefore,  in  such  cases,  would  assume  the  whole  expense,  nor 
was  the  co-operation  of  several  States  to  be  expected.  Take  the  instance  of  the  Delaware 
Breakwater.  It  will  cost  several  millions  of  money.  Would  Pennsylvania  alone  have  ever 
constructed  it  ?  Certainly  never,  while  this  Union  lasts,  because  it  is  not  for  her  sole  benefit. 
Would  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  and  Delaware,  have  united  to  accomplish  it,  at  their  joint 
expense  }  Certainly  not,  for  the  same  reason.  It  could  not  be  done,  therefore,  but  by  the 
General  Government.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  large  inland  undertakings,  except  that, 
Hi  them,  Government,  instead  of  bearing  the  whole  expense,  co-operates  with  others  who 
bear  a  part.  The  other  consideration  is,  that  the  United  States  have  the  means.  They  en- 
joy the  revenues  derived  from  commerce,  and  the  States  have  no  abundant  and  easy  sources 
of  public  income.  The  custom-houses  fill  the  general  treasury,  while  the  States  have  scanty 
resources,  except  by  resort  to  heavy  direct  taxes. 

Under  this  view  of  things,  I  thought  it  necessary  to  settle,  at  least  for  myself,  some  definite 
notions,  with  respect  to  the  powers  of  the  Government,  in  regard  to  internal  affairs.  It  may 
not  savor  too  mudi  of  self-commcVidation  to  remark,  that,  with  this  object,  I  considered  the 
Constitution,  its  judicial  construction,  its  cotemporaneous  exposition,  and  the  whole  history 
of  the  legislation  of  Congress  under  it ;  and  I  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  Government  had 
power  to  accomplish  sundry  objects,  or  aid  in  their  accomplishment,  Which  are  now  commonly 
spoken  of  as  Internal  Improvements.  That  conclusion,  sir,  may  have  been  right,  or  it 
may  have  been  wrong.  I  am  not  about  to  argue  the  grounds  of  it  at  large.  I  say  only,  that 
it  was  adopted  and  acted  on  even  so  early  as  in  1816.  Yes,  Mr.  President,  1  made  up  my 
opinion,  and  determined  on  my  intended  course  of  political  conduct,  on  these  subjects,  in 
the  Fourteenth  Congress,  in  1816.  And  now,  Mr.  President,  I  have  further  to  sav,  that  I 
made  up  these  opinions,  and  entered  on  this  course  of  political  conduct,  Teurro  ducc.  Yes, 
sir,  I  pursued,  in  all  this,  a  South  Carolina  track.  On  the  doctrines  of  Internal  Improvement, 
South  Carolina,  as  she  was  then  represented  in  the  other  House,  set  forth,  in  1816,  under  a 
fresh  and  leading  breeze,  and  I  was  among  the  followers,  lint  if  my  leader  sees  new  light*, 
and  turns  a  sharp  corner,  unless  I  see  new  lights  also,  I  keep  straight  on  in  the  same  path. 
I  repeat,  that  leading  gentlemen  from  South  Carolina  were  first  and  foremost  in  behalf  of 
the  doctrines  of  Internal  Improvements,  when  those  doctrines  first  came  to  be  considered 
and  acted  upon  in  Congress.  The  debate  on  the  Hank  question,  on  the  Tariff'  of  1816,  and 
on  the  Direct  Tax,  will  show  who  was  who,  and  what  was  what,  at  that  time.  The  Tariff 
of  1816,  one  of  the  plain  cases  of  oppression  and  usurpation,  from  which,  if  the  Government 
docs  not  recede,  individual  States,  it  is  said,  may  justly  secede  from  the  Government,  is,  sir,  in 
truth,  a  South  Carolina  Tariff",  supported  by  South  Carolina  votes.  Hut  for  those  votes,  it  could 
not  have  passed  in  the  form  in  which  it  did  pass;  whereas,  if  it  had  depended  on  Massachu- 
setts votes,  it  would  have  been  lost.  Does  not  the  honorable  gentleman  well  know  all  this  ) 
There  are  certainly  those  who  do,  full  well,  know  it  all.  I  do  not  say  this  to  reproach  South 
Carolina.  I  only  state  the  fact ;  and  I  think  it  will  appear  to  be  true,  that  among  the  earliest 
and  boldest  advocates  of  the  Tariff',  as  a  measure  of  protection,  and  on  the  express  ground 
of  protection,  were  leading  gentlemen  of  South  Carolina  in  Congress.  I  did  not  then,  and 
cannot  now,  understand  their  language  in  any  other  sense.  While  this  Tariff*  of  1816  was 
under  discussion,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  an  honorable  gentleman  from  Georgia, 
now  of  this  House,  (Mr.  Forsyth,)  moved  to  reduce  the  proposed  duty  on  cotton.  He 
failed,  by  four  votes,  South  Carolina  giving  three  votes  (enough  to  have  turned  the  scale) 
against  DM  motion.  The  act,  sir,  then  passed,  and  received  on  its  passage  the  support  of  a 
majority  of  the  Representatives  of  South  Carolina  present  and  voting.  This  act  is  the  first, 
in  the  order  of  those  now  denounced  as  plain  usurpations.  We  see  it  daily,  in  the  list,  by 
the  side  of  those  of  1824  and  1828,  as  a  case  of  manifest  oppression,  justifying  disunion. 
I  put  it  home,  to  the  honorable  member  from  South  Carolina,  that  his  own  State  was  not 
only  « art  and  part '  in  this  measure,  but  the  causa  causans.    Without  her  aid,  this  seminal 


12 


principle  of  mischief,  this  root  of  Upas,  could  not  have  been  planted.  I  have  already  saidf 
and  it  is  true,  that  this  act  proceeded  on  the  ground  of  protection.  It  interfered,  directly,  with 
existing-  interests  of  great  value  and  amount.  It  cut  up  the  Calcutta  cotton  trade  by  the 
roots,  but  it  passed,  nevertheless,  and  it  passed  on  the  principle  of  protecting  manufactures, 
on  the  principle  against  free  trade,  on  the  principle  opposed  to  that  which  lets  us  alone. — Note  2. 

Such,  Mr.  President,  were  the  opinions  of  important  and  leading  gentlemen  from  South 
Carolina,  on  the  subject  of  Internal  Improvement,  in  1816.  I  went  out  of  Congress  the  next 
year  ;  and  returning  again,  in  1823 — thought  I  found  South  Carolina  where  I  had  left  her.  I 
really  supposed  that  all  things  remained  as  they  were,  and  that  the  South  Carolina  doctrine 
of  Internal  Improvements  would  be  defended  by  the  same  eloquent  voices,  and  the  same 
strong  arms,  as  formerly.  In  the  iapse  of  these  six  years,  it  is  true,  political  associations  had 
assumed  a  new  aspect,  and  new  divisions.  A  party  had  arisen  in  the  South,  hostile  to  the 
doctrine  of  Internal  Improvements,  and  had  vigorously  attacked  that  doctrine.  Anti-con- 
solidation was  the  flag  under  whicli  this  party  fought ;  and  its  supporters  inveighed  against 
Internal  Improvements,  mucii  after  the  manner  in  which  the  honorable  gentleman  has  now 
inveighed  against  them,  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  system  of  consolidation.  Whether  this 
party  arose  in  South  Carolina  herself,  or  in  her  neighborhood,  is  more  than  I  know.  I  think 
the  latter.  However  that  may  have  been,  there  were  those  found  in  South  Carolina  ready 
to  make  war  upon  it,  and  who  did  make  intrepid  war  upon  it.  Names  being  regarded  as 
things,  in  such  controversies,  they  bestowed  on  the  anti-improvement  gentlemen  the  appel- 
lation of  Radicals.  Yes,  sir,  the  name  of  Radicals,  as  a  term  of  distinction,  applicable  and 
applied  to  those  who  denied  the  liberal  doctrines  of  Internal  Improvements,  originated, 
according  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  somewhere  between  North  Carolina  and  Georgia. 
Weil,  sir,  these  mischievous  Radicals  were  to  be  put  down,  and  the  strong  arm  of  South 
Carolina  was  stretched  out  to  put  them  down.  About  this  time,  sir,  I  returned  to  Congress. 
The  battle  with  the  Radicals  had  been  fought,  and  our  South  Carolina  champions  of  the 
doctrines  of  Internal  Improvement  had  nobly  maintained  their  ground,  and  were  understood 
to  have  achieved  a  victory.  They  have  driven  back  the  enemy  with  discomfiture — a  thing, 
by  the  way,  sir,  which  is  not  always  performed  when  it  is  promised.    A  gentleman,  to  whom 

I  have  already  referred  in  this  debate,  had  come  into  Congress,  during  my  absence  from  it, 
from.  South  Carolina,  and  had  brought  with  him  a  high  reputation  for  ability.  He  came  from 
a  school  with  which  we  had  been  acquainted,  et  noscitur  a  sociis.  I  hold  in  my  hand,  sir,  a 
printed  speech  of  this  distinguished  gentleman,  (Mr.  McDuffie,)  "on  Internal  Improve- 
ments," delivered  about  the  period  to  which  I  now  refer,  and  printed  with  a  few  introductory 
remarks  upon  consolidation ;  in  which,  sir,  I  think  he  quite  consolidated  the  arguments  of 
his  opponents,  the  Radicals,  if  to  crush  be  to  consolidate. 1  I  give  you  a  short  but  substantive 
quotation  from  these  remarks.  He  is  speaking  of  a  pamphlet,  then  recently  published, 
entitled  "  Consolidation  ;"  and  having  alluded  to  the  question  of  renewing  the  charter  of 
the  former  Bank  of  the  United  States,  he  says  :  "  Moreover,  in  the  early  history  of  parties,  and 
"  when  Mr.  Crawford  advocated  a  renewal  of  the  old  charter,  it  was  considered  a  federal 

II  measure  ;  which  Internal  Improvements  never  was,  as  this  author  erroneously  states.  This 
"  latter  measure  originated  in  the  administration  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  with  the  appropriation  for 
"  the  Cumberland  Road;  and  was  first  proposed,  as  a  system,  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  carried 
"  through  the  House  of  Representatives  by  a  large  majority  of  the  Republicans,  including 
"  almost  every  one  of  the  leading  men  who  carried  us  through  the  late  war." 

So  then,  Internal  Improvement  is  not  one  of  the  Federal  heresies.  One  paragraph  more,  sir  : 
"  The  author  in  question,  not  content  with  denouncing  as  Federalists  General  Jackson, 
u  Mr.  Adams,  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  the  majority  of  the  South  Carolina  delegation  in  Congress, 
"  modestly  extends  the  denunciation  to  Mr.  Monroe,  and  the  whole  Republican  party." 
Here  are  his  words  :  "  During  the  administration  of  Mr.  Monroe,  much  has  passed  which 
"  the  Republican  party  would  be  glad  to  approve,  if  they  could  !  !  But  the  principal  feature, 
"  and  that  which  has  chiefly  elicited  these  observations,  is  the  renewal  of  the  System  ok 
"  Internal  Improvements.'  11  Now  this  measure  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  115  to  86,  of 
M  a  Republican  Congress,  and  sanctioned  by  a  Republican  President.  Who,  then,  is  this 
"author — who  assumes  the  high  prerogative  of  denouncing,  in  the  name  of  the  Republican 
'*  party,  the  Republican  Administration  of  the  country  ?  A  denunciation  including  within 
"  its  sweep  Calhoun,  Lowndes  and  Cheves — men  who  will  be  regarded  as  the  brightest  orna- 
"  ments  of  South  Carolina,  and  the  strongest  pillars  of  the  Republican  party,  as  long  as 
11  the  late  war  shall  be  remembered,  and  talents  and  patriotism  shall  be  regarded  as  the 
"  proper  objects  of  the  admiration  and  gratitude  of  a  free  People  !  !" 

Such  are  'the  opinions  sir,  which  were  maintained  by  South  Carolina  gentlemen,  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  on  the  subject  of  Internal  Improvements,  when  I  took  my  seat 
there,  as  a  member  from  Massachusetts,  in  1823.  But  this  is  not  all  t  We  had  a  bill  before 
us,  and  passed  it  in  that  House,  entitled  "  An  act  to  procure  the  necessary  surveys,  plans, 
and  estimates  upon  the  subject  of  Roads  and  Canals."  //  authorized  the  President  to  cause, 
surveys  and  estimates  to  be  made  of  the  routes  of  such  Roads  and  Canals  as  he  might  deem  oj 
national  importance,  in  a  commercial  or  military  point  of  view,  or  for  the  transportation  of  the 
mail,  and  appropriated  thirty  thousand  dollars,  out  of  the  Treasury,  to  defray  the  expense. 
This  act,  though  preliminary  in  its  nature,  covered  the  whole  ground.  It  took  for  granted 
the  complete  power  of  Internal  Improvement,  as  far  as  any  of  its  advocates  had  ever  con- 
tended for  it.  Having  passed  the  other  House,  the  bill  came  up  to  the  Senate,  and  was  here 
considered  and  debated  in  April,  1824.    The  honorable  member  from  South  Carolina  was  a 


13 


member  of  the  Senate,  at  that  time.  While  the  bill  was  under  consideration  here,  a  motion 
was  made  to  add  the  following  proviso  : 

"  Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  affirm  or  admit  a  power 
u  in  Congress,  on  their  own  authority,  to  make  Roads  or  (Janals,  within  any  of  the  States 
'*  of  the  Union."  The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken  on  this  proviso,  and  the  honorable  mem- 
ber voted  in  the  negative  !    The  proviso  failed. 

A  motion  was  then  made  to  add  this  proviso,  viz  : 

«k  Provided,  That  the  faith  of  the  United  States  is  hereby  pledged,  thatno  money  shall  ever 
"  be  expended  for  Roads  or  Canals,  except  it  shall  be  among  \he  several  States,  and  in  the 
"  same  proportion  as  direct  taxes  are  laid  and  assessed  by  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution-" 

The  honorable  member  voted  against  this  proviso,  also,  and  it  failed.  The  bill  was  then 
put  on  its  passage,  and  the  honorable  member  voted  for  it,  and  it  passed,  and  became  a  law. 

Now,  it  strikes  me,  sir,  that  there  is  no  maintaining  these  votes,  hut  upon  the  power  of 
Internal  Improvement,  in  its  broadest  sense.  In  truth,  these  bills  for  surveys  and  estimates 
have  always  been  considered  as  test  questions — they  show  who  is  for  and  who  against  Inter- 
nal Improvement.  This  law  itself  went  the  whole  length,  and  assumed  the  full  and  complete 
power.  The  gentleman's  votes  sustained  that  power,  in  every  form  in  which  the  various 
propositions  to  amend  presented  it.  He  went  for  the  entire  and  unrestrained  authority, 
without  consulting  the  States,  and  without  agreeing  to  any  proportionate  distribution.  And 
now  suffer  me  to  remind  you,  Mr.  President,  that  it  is  this  very  same  power,  thus  sanctioned, 
in  every  form,  by  the  gentleman's  own  opinion,  that  is  now  so  plain  and  manifest  a  usurpation, 
that  the  State  of  South  Carolina  is  supposed  to  be  justified  in  refusing  submission  to  any  laws 
carrying  the  power  into  effect.  Truly,  sir,  is  this  not  a  little  too  hard  ?  May  we  not  crave 
some  mercy,  under  favor  and  protection  of  the  gentleman's  own  authority  }  Admitting  that 
:\  road,  or  a  canal,  must  be  written  down  flat  usurpation  as  ever  was  committed,  may  we  find 
no  mitigation  in  our  respect  for  his  place,  and  his  vote,  as  one  that  knows  the  law  ? 

The  Tariff,  which  South  Carolina  had  an  efficient  hand  in  establishing,  in  1816,  and  this 
asserted  power  of  Internal  Improvement,  advanced  by  her  in  the  same  year,  and,  as  we 
have  seen,  approved  and  sanctioned  by  her  Representatives  in  182-i,  these  two  measures  are 
the  great  grounds  on  which  she  is  now  thought  to  be  justified  in  breaking  up  the  Union,  if 
she  sees  fit  to  break  it  up  ! 

I  may  now  safely  say,  I  think,  that  we  have  had  the  authority  of  leading  and  distinguished 
gentlemen  from  South  Carolina,  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  Internal  Improvement.  I 
repeat,  that,  up  to  1824,  I,  for  one,-  followed  South  Carolina  ;  but,  when  that  star,  iu  its 
ascension,  veered  off,  in  an  unexpected  direction,  I  relied  on  its  light  no  longer.  [Here  the 
Vice  President  said-:  Does  the  Chair  understand  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  to  say- 
that  the  person  now  occupying  the  Chair  of  the  Senate  has  changed  his  opinions  on  the 
subject  of  Internal  Improvements  ?]  From  nothing  ever  said  to  me,  sir,  have  I  had  reason 
to  know  of  any  change  in  the  opinions  of  the  person  filling  the  Chair  of  the  Senate,  if 
such  change  has  taken  place,  I  regret  it.  I  speak  generally  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina. 
Individuals,  we  know  there  are,  who  hold  opinions  favorable  to  the  power.  An  application 
for  its  exercise,  in  behalf  of  a  public  work  in  South  Carolina  itself,  is  now  pending,  I  believe, 
in  the  other  House,  presented  by  members  from  that  State. 

J  have  thus,  sir,  perhaps  not  without  some  tediousness  of  detail,  shown  that  if  I  am  in 
error,  on  the  subjects  of  Internal  Improvement,  how,  and  in  what  company,  I  fell  into  that 
error.    If  I  am  wrong,  it  is  apparent  who  misled  me. 

I  go  to  other  remarks  of  the  honorable  member,  and  I  have  to  complain,  of  an  entire 
misapprehension  of  what  1  said  on  the  subject  of  the  national  debt,  though  1  can  hardlv 
perceive  how  any  one  could  misunderstand  me.  What  I  said  was,  not  that  I  wished  to  put  off 
the  payment  of  the  debt,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  I  had  always  voted  for  every  measure  for 
its  reduction,  as  uniformly  as  the  gentleman  himself.  He  seems  to  claim  the  exclusive  merit 
oi  a  disposition  to  reduce  the  public  charge.  I  do  not  allow  it  to  him.  As  a  debt,  1  was,  I 
am  fbr  paying  it,  because  it  is  a  charge  on  our  finances,  and  on  the  industry  of  the  couirtry. 
Put  I  observed,  that  I  thought  I  perceived  a  morbid  fervor  on  that  subject — an  excessive 
anxiety  to  pay  off  the  debt,  not  so  much  because  it  is  a  debt  simply,  as  because,  while  it 
reinains,  it  furnishes  one  objection  to  disunion.  It  is  a  tie  of  common  interest  while  it  lasts.  I 
did  not  impute  such  motives  to  the  honorable  member  himself,  but  that  there  is  such  a  feel- 
ing in  existence,  1  have  not  a  particle  of  doubt.  The  most  I  said  was,  that  if  one  effect  oi 
the  debt  was  to  strengthen  our  Union,  that  effect  itseff  was  not  regretted  by  me,  however 
much  others  might  regret  it.  The  gentleman  has  not  seen  how  to  reply  to  this,  otherwise 
than  by  supposing  me  to  have  advanced  the  doctrine  thai  a  national  debt  is  a  national  bless- 
ing. Others,  I  must  hope,  will  find  less  difiiculty  in  understanding  me.  I  distinctly  and 
pointedly  cautioned  the  honorable  member  not  to  understand  me  as  expressing  an  opinion 
favorable  to  the  continuance  of  the  debt.  I  repeated  this  caution,  and  repeated  it  more 
than  once  ;  but  it  was  thrown  away. 

On  yet  another  point,  I  was  still  more  unaccountably  misunderstood.  The  gentleman  had 
harangued  against  4<  consolidation."  I  told  him,  in  reply,  that  there  was  one  kind  of  consoli- 
dation to  which  1  was  attached,  and  that  was,  the  tonsoliuatioji  op  our  union  ;  and  that 
this  was  precisely  that  consolidation  to  which  I  feared  others  were  not  attached.  That  such 
consolidation  was  the  very  end  of  the  constitution — the  leading  object,  as  they  had  informed 
us  themselves,  which  its  framers  kept  in  view.  I  turned  to  their  communication,  and  read 
their  very  words — 11  tho  consolidation  of  the  Union" — and  expressed  my  devotion  to  this  tort 


\ 


14 


of  consolidation.  I  said,  in  terms,  that  1  wished  not,  in  the  slightest  degree,  to  augment 
the  powers  of  this  Government ;  that  my  object  was  to  preserve,  not  to  enlarge  ;  and  that  Un- 
consolidating the  Union,  I  understood  no  more  than  the  strengthening  of  the  Union,  and  per- 
petuating it.  Having  been  thus  explicit ;  having  thus  read  from  the  printed  book,  the  pre- 
cise words  which  I  adopted,  as  expressing  my  own  sentiments,  it  passes  comprehension, 
how  any  man  could  understand  me  as  contending  for  an  extension  of  the  powers  of  the 
Government,  or  for  consolidation,  in  that  odious  sense,  in  which  it  means  an  accumulation  in 
the  Federal  Government  of  the  powers  properly  belonging  to  the  States. 

I  repeat,  sir,  that  in  adopting  the  sentiment  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  I  read  their 
language  audibly,  and  word  for  word  ;  and  I  pointed  out  the  distinction,  just  as  fully  as  I  have 
now  done,  between  the  consolidation  of  the  Union,  and  that  other  obnoxious  consolidation 
which  T  disclaimed.  And  yet  the  honorable  member  misunderstood  me.  The  gentleman  had 
said  that  he  wished  for  no  fixed  revenue — not  a  shilling.  If,  by  a  word,  he  could  convert  the 
Capitol  into  gold,  he  would  not  do  it.  Why  all  this  fear  of  revenue  ?  Why,  sir,  because, 
as  the  gentleman  told  us,  it  tends  to  consolidation.  Now,  this  can  mean  neither  more  nor  less 
than  that  a  common  revenue  is  a  common  interest,  and  that  all  common  interests  tend  to  hold 
the  Union  of  the  States  together.  I  confess  I  like  that  tendency  ;  if  the  gentleman  dislikes 
it,  he  is  right  in  deprecating  a  shilling's  fixed  revenue.    So  much,  sir,  for  consolidation. 

As  well  as  I  recollect  the  course  of  his  remarks,  the  honorable  gentleman  next  recurred  to 
the  subject  of  the  Tariff.  He  did  not  doubt  the  word  must  be  of  unpleasant  sound  to  me,  and 
proceeded,  with  an  effort,  neither  new,  nor  attended  with  new  success,  to  involve  me  and  my 
votes  in  inconsistency  and  contradiction.  I  am  happy  the  honorable  gentleman  has  furnished 
me  an  opportunity  of  a  timely  remark  or  two  on  that  subject.  I  was  glad  he  approached  it, 
for  it  is  a  question  I  enter  upon  without  fear  from  any  body.  The  strenuous  toil  of  the  gentle- 
man has  been  to  raise  an  inconsistency,  between  my  dissent  to  the  Tariff  in  1824,  and  my  vote 
in  1828.  It  is  labor  lost.  He  pays  undeserved  compliment  to  my  speech  in  1824  ;  but  this  is 
only  to  raise  me  high,  that  my  fall,  as  he  would  have  it,  in  1828,  may  be  more  signal.  Sir,  there 
was  no  fall  at  all.  Between  the  ground  I  stood  on  in  1824,  and  that  I  took  in  1828,  there 
was  not  only  no  precipice,  but  no  declivity.  It  was  a  change  of  position  to  meet  new  eir- 
c  jmstances,  but  on  the  same  level.  A  plain  tale  explains  the  whole  matter.  In  1816, 1  had  not 
acquiesced  in  the  Tariff,  then  supported  by  South  Carolina.  To  some  parts  of  it,  especially, 
1  felt  and  expressed  great  repugnance.  I  held  the  same  opinions  in  1821,  at  the  meeting 
in  Faneuil  Hall,  to  which  the  gentleman  has  alluded.  I  said  then,  and  say  now,  that,  as  an 
original  question,  the  authority  of  Congress  to  exercise  the  revenue  power,  with  direct  refer- 
ence to  the  protection  of  manufactures,  is  a  questionable  authority,  far  more  questionable,  in 
my  judgment,  than  the  power  of  Internal  Improvements.  I  must  confess,  sir,  that,  in 
one  respect,  some  impression  has  been  made  on  my  opinions  lately.  Mr.  Madison's  publica- 
tion has  put  the  power  in  a  very  strong  light.  He  has  placed  it,  I  must  acknowledge,  upon 
grounds  of  construction  and  argument,  which  seem  impregnable.  But  even  if  the  power  were 
doubtful,  on  the  face  of  the  Constitution  itself,  it  had  been  assumed  and  asserted  in  the  first 
revenue  law  ever  passed  under  that  same  Constitution  ;  and,  on  this  ground,  as  a  matter  set- 
tled by  cotemporaneous  practice,  I  had  refrained  from  expressing  the  opinion  that  the 
Tariff  laws  transcended  constitutional  limits,  as  the  gentleman  supposes.  What  I  did  say  at 
Faneuil  Hall,  as  far  as  I  now  remember,  was,  that  this  was  originally  matter  of  doubtful 
construction.  The  gentleman  himself,  I  suppose,  thinks  there  is  no  doubt  about  it,  and  that 
the  laws  are  plainly  against  the  Constitution.  Mr.  Madison's  letters  already  referred  to, 
contaiu,  in  my  judgment,  by  far  the  most  able  exposition  extant,  of  this  part  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. He  has  satisfied  me,  so  far  as  the  practice  of  the  Government  had  left  it  an  open  ques- 
tion. 

With  a  great  majority  of  the  Representatives  of  Massachusetts,  I  voted  against  the  Tariff 
of  1824.  My  reasons  were  then  given,  and  I  will  not  now  repeat  them.  But,  notwith- 
standing our  dissent,  the  great  States  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and  Kentucky,  went 
for  the  bill,  in  almost  unbroken  column,  and  it  passed.  Congress  and  the  President  sanc- 
tioned it,  and  it  became  the  law  of  the  land.  What,  then,  were  we  to  do  ?  Our  only  option 
was,  either  to  fall  in  with  this  settled  course  of  public  policy,  and  accommodate  ourselves  to 
it  as  well  as  we  could,  or  to  embrace  the  South  Carolina  doctrine,  and  talk  of  nullifying  the 
statute  by  State  interference. 

This  last  alternative  did  not  suit  our  principles,  and,  of  course,  we  adopted  the  former. 
In  1827,  the  subject  came  again  before  Congress,  on  a  pfoposition  favorable  to  wool  and 
woollens.  We  looked  upon  the  system  of  protection  as  being  fixed  and  settled.  The  law 
of  1824  remained.  It  had  gone  into  full  operation,  and,  in  regard  to  some  objects  intended 
by  it,  perhaps  most  of  them,  had  produced  all  its  expected  effects.  No  man  proposed  to 
repeal  it ;  no  man  attempted  to  renew  the  general  contest  on  its  principle.  But,  owing  to  sub- 
sequent and  unforeseen  occurrences,  the  benefit  intended  by  it  to  wool  and  woollen  fabrics 
had  not  been  realized.  Events,  not  known  here  when  the  law  passed,  had  taken  place  which 
defeated  its  object  in  that  particular  respect.  A  measure  was  accordingly  brought  forward 
to  meet  this  precise  deficiency,  to  remedy  this  particular  defect.  It  was  limited  to  wool  and 
woollens.  Was  ever  any  thing  more  reasonable  ?  If  the  policy  of  the  Tariff  laws  had  be- 
come established  in  principle,  as  the  permanent  policy  of  Government,  should  they  not  be 
revised  and  amended,  and  made  equal,  like  other  laws,  as  exigencies  should  arise,  or  justice 
require  '  Because  we  had  doubted  about  adopting  ti»e  system,  were  we  to  refuse  to  cure 
its  manifest  defects,  after  it  become  adopted,  and  when  no  one  attempted  its  repeal  I  And 


15 


this,  sir,  is  the  inconsistency  so  much  bruited.  !  had  voted  against  the  Tariff  of  1824— but 
it  passed  ;  and  in  1827  and  1828,  I  voted  to  amend  it,  in  a  point  essential  to  the  interests  of 
my  constituents.  Where  is  the  inconsistency  f  Could  I  do  otherwise  1  Sir,  does  political  con- 
sistency consist  in  always  giving'  negative  votes  *  Does  it  require  of  a  public  man  to  refuse 
to  concur  in  amending  laws,  because  they  passed  against  his  consent  }  Having  voted  against 
the  Tariff  originally,  does  consistency  demand  that  I  should  do  all  in  my  power  to  maintain  an 
unequal  Tariff,  burdensome  to  my  own  constituents,  in  many  respects,  favorable  in  none  } 
To  consistency  of  that  sort,  I  lay  no  claim — and  there  is  another  sort  to  which  I  lay  as  little — 
and  that  is,  a  kind  of  consistency  by  which  persons  feel  themselves  as  much  bound  to  oppose 
a  proposition  after  it  has  become  a  law  of  the  land,  as  before. 

The  bill  of  1827  limited,  as  I  have  said,  to  the  single  object  in  which  the  Tariff  of  1824 
had  manifestly  failed  in  its  effect,  passed  the  House  of  Representatives,  but  was  lost  here. 
We  had  then  the  act  of  1828.  I  need  not  recur  to  the  history  of  a  measure  so  recent.  Its 
enemies  spiced  it  with  whatsoever  they  thought  would  render  it  distasteful  ;  its  friends  took 
it,  drugged  as  it  was.  Vast  amounts  of  property,  many  millions,  had  been  invested  in  ma- 
nufactures, under  the  inducements  of  the  act  of  1824.  Events  called  loudly,  as  I  thought, 
for  further  regulation  to  secure  the  degree  of  protection  intended  by  that  act.  I  was  dis- 
posed to  vote  for  such  regulation,  and  desired  nothing  more  ;  but  certainly  was  not  to  be 
bantered  out  of  my  purpose  by  a  threatened  augmentation  of  duty  on  molasses,  put  into  the 
bill  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  making  it  obnoxious.  The  vote  may  have  been  right  or 
wrong,  wise  or  uiyvise  ;  but  it  is  little  less  than  absurd  to  allege  against  it  an  inconsistency 
with  opposition  to  the  former  law. 

Sir,  as  to  the  general  subject  of  the  Tariff,  I  have  little  now  to  say.  Another  opportunity 
may  be  presented.  I  remarked  the  other  day,  that  this  policy  did  not  begin  with  us  in  New 
England  ;  and  yet,  sir,  New  England  is  charged,  with  vehemence,  as  being  favorable,  or 
charged  with  equal  vehemence,  as  being  unfavorable  to  the  Tariff  policy,  just  as  best  suits 
the  time,  place,  and  occasion,  for  making  some  charge  against  her.  The  credulity  of  the 
public  has  been  put  to  its  extreme  capacity  of  false  impression,  relative  to  her  conduct,  in 
this  particular.  Through  all  the  South,  during  the  late  contest,  it  was  New  England  po- 
licy, and  a  New  England  Administration,  that  was  afflicting  the  country  with  a  Tariff  be- 
yond all  endurance  ;  while  on  the  other  side  of  the  Alleghany,  even  the  act  of  1828,  itself, 
the  very  sublimated  essence  of  oppression,  according  to  Southern  opinions,  was  pronounced 
to  be  one  of  those  blessings  for  which  the  West  was  indebted  to  the  "generous  South." 

With  large  investments  in  manufacturing  establishments,  and  many  and  various  interests 
connected  with  and  dependent  on  them,  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  New  England,  any 
more  than  other  portions  of  the  country,  will  now  consent  to  any  measure,  destructive,  or 
highly  dangerous.  The  duty  of  the  Government,  at  the  present  moment,  would  seem  to 
be  to'preserve,  not  to  destroy  ;  to  maintain  the  position  which  it  has  assumed  ;  and,  for  one, 
I  shall  feel  it  an  indispensable  obligation  to  hold  it  steady,  as  far  as  in  my  power,  to  that 
degree  of  protection  which  it  has  undertaken  to  bestow. — No  more  of  the  Tariff. 

Professing  to  be  provoked  by  what  he  chose  to  consider  a  charge  made  by  me  against 
South  Carolina,  the  honorable  member,  Mr.  President,  has  taken  up  a  new  crusade  against 
New  England.  Leaving,  altogether,  the  subject  of  the  public  landi.,  in  which  his  success, 
perhaps,  had  been  neither  distinguished  or  satisfactory,  and  letting  go,  also,  of  the  topic  of 
the  Tariff,  he  sallied  forth,  in  a  general  assault,  on  the  opinions,  politics,  and  parties  of  New 
England,  as  they  have  been  exhibited  in  the  last  thirty  years.  This  is  natural.  The  "  nar- 
row policy  "  of  the  public  lands  had  proved  a  legal  settlement  in  South  Carolina,  and  was 
not  to  be  removed.  The  "accursed  policy"  of  the  Tariff,  also,  had  established  the  fact  of 
its  birth  and  parentage,  in  the  same  state.  No  wonder,  therefore,  the  gentleman  wished  to 
carry  the  war,  as  he  expressed  it,  into  the  enemy's  country.  Prudently  willing  to  quit  these 
subjects,  he  was,  doubtless,  desirous  of  fastening  on  others,  which  could  not  be  transferred 
South  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line.  The  politics  of  New  England  became  his  theme  ;  and  it 
was  in  this  part  of  his  speech,  I  think,  that  he  menaced  me  with  such  sore  discomfiture. 
Discomfiture!  Why,  sir,  when  he  attacks  any  thing  which  I  maintain,  and  overthrows  it  ; 
when  he  turns  the  right  or  left  of  any  position  which  I  take  up  ;  when  he  drives  me  from 
any  ground  I  choose  to  occupy  j  he  may  then  talk  of  discomfiture,  but  not  till  that  distant 
day.  What  has  he  done  }  Has  he  maintained  his  own  charges  }  Has  he  proved  what  he 
alleged  ?  Has  he  sustained  himself  in  his  attack  on  the  Government,  and  on  the  history  of 
the  North,  in  the  matter  of  the  public  lands  ?  Has  he  disproved  a  fact,  refuted  a  proposi-' 
tion,  weakened  an  argument,  maintained  by  me  ?  Has  he  come  within  beat  of  drum  of  any 
position  of  mine  }  Oh,  no,  but  he  has  "carried  the  war  into  the  enemy's  country  !"  (;ar. 
ried  the  war  into  the  enemy's  country  !  Yes,  sir,  and  what  sort  of  a  war  has  he  made  of  it  } 
Why,  sir,  he  has  stretched  a  drag-net  over  the  whole  surface  of  perished  pamphlets,  indis- 
creet sermons,  frothy  paragraphs,  and  fuming  popular  addresses  ;  over  whatever  the  pulpit, 
in  its  momenU  of  alarm,  the  press  in  its  heats,  and  parties  in  their  extravagance,  have  seve- 
rally thrown  off,  in  times  of  general  excitement  and  violence.  He  has  thus  swept  together 
a  mass  of  such  things  as,  but  that  they  are  now  old,  the  public  health  would  have  required 
him  rather  to  leave  in- their  state  of  dispersion.  For  a  good  long  hour  or  two,  we  had  the 
unbroken  pleasure  of  listening  to  the  honorable  member,  whde  he  recited,  with  his  usual 
grace  and  spirit,  and  with  evident  high  gusto,  speeches,  pamphlets,  addresses,  and  all  the 
tt  cstterat  of  the  political  press,  such  as  warm  heads  produce  in  warm  times  ;  and  such  as  it 
would  be  "discomfiture,"  indeed,  for  any  one,  whose  taste  did  not  delight  in  that  sort  of 


16 


reading,  to  be  obliged  to  peruse  at  any  time.  This  is  his  war.  This  it  is  to  carry  the  war  into 
the  enemy's  country.  It  is  in  an  invasion  of  this  sort,  that  he  flatters  himself  with  the  ex- 
pectation of  gaining-  laurels  fit  to  adorn  a  Senator's  brow  ! 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  not — it  will,  I  trust,  not  be  expected  that  T  should,  either  now,  or  at 
any  time,  separate  this  farrago  into  parts,  and  examine  and  answer  its  components.  I  shall 
hardly  besiow  upon  it  all,. a  general  remark  or  two.  In  the  run  of  forty  years,  sir,  under  this 
Constitution,  we  have  experienced  sundry  successive  violent  party  contests.  Party  arose, 
indeed,  with  the  Constitution  itself,  and,  in  some  form  or  other,  has  attended  it  through  the 
greater  part  of  its  history.  Whether  any  other  Constitution  than  the  old  Articles  of  Confe- 
deration was  desirable,  was,  itself,  a  question  on  which  parties  formed  :  if  a  new  Constitution 
were  framed,  what  powers  should  be  given  to  it,  was  another  question  ;  and,  when  it  had 
been  formed,  what  was,  in  fact,  the  just  extent  of  the  powers  actually  conferred,  was  a  third. 
Parties,  as  we  know,  existed  under  the  first  Administration,  us  distinctly  marked  as  those 
which  manifested  themselves  at  any  subsequent  period.  The  contest  immediately  preced- 
ing the  political  change  in  1801,  and  that,  again,  which  existed  at  the  commencement  of  the 
late  war,  are  other  instances  of  party  excitement,  of  something  more  than  usual  strength  and 
intensity.  In  all  these  conflicts,  there  was,  no  doubt,  much  of  violence  on  both  and  all  sides. 
It  would  be  impossible,  if  one  had  a  fancy  for  such  employment,  to  adjust  the  relative  quan- 
tum of  violence  between  these  contending  parties.  There  was  enough  in  each,  as  must 
always  be  expected  in  popular  Governments.  With  a  great  deal  of  proper  and  decorous 
discussion,  there  was  mingled  a  great  deal,  also,  of  declamation,  virulence,*crimination,  and 
abuse.  In  regard  to  any  party,  probably,  at  one  of  these  leading  epochs  in  the  history  of  par- 
ties, enough  may  be  found  to  make  out  another  equally  inflamed  exhibition,  as  that  with 
which  the  honorable  member  has  edified  us.  For  myself,  sir,  I  shall  not  rake  among  the 
rubbish  of  by-gone  times,  to  see  what  I  can  find,  or  whether  I  cannot  find  something,  by 
which  I  can  fix  a  blot  on  the  escutcheon  <5f  any  State,  any  party,  or  any  part  of  the  country. 
General  Washington's  administration  was  steadily  and  zealously  maintained,  as  we  all  know, 
by  New  England.  It  was  violently  opposed  elsewhere.  We  know  in  what  quarter  he  had 
the  most  earnest,  constant,  and  persevering  support,  in  all  his  great  and  leading  measures. 
We  know  where  his  private  and  personal  character  were  held  in  the  highest  degree  of 
attachment  and  veneration  ;  and  we  know,  too,  where  his  measures  were  opposed,  his  ser- 
vices slighted,  and  his  character  vilified.  We  know,  or  we  might  know,  if  we  turned  te>  the 
Journals,  who  expressed  respect,  gratitude,  and  regret,  when  he  retired  from  the  Chief 
Magistracy  ;  and  who  refused  to  express  either  respect,  gratitude,  or  regret.  I  shall  not 
open  those  Journals.  Publications  more  abusive  or  scurrilous  never  saw  the  light,  than  were 
sent  forth  against  Washington,  and  all  his  leading  measures,  from  presses  South  of  New 
England.  But  I  shall  not  look  them  up.  I  employ  no  scavengers — no  one  is  in  attendance 
on  me,  tendering  such  means  of  retaliation  ;  and,  if  there  were,  with  an  ass's  load  of  them, 
with  a  bulk  as  huge  as  that  which  the  gentleman  himself  has  produced,  I  would  not  touch 
one  of  them.  I  see  enough  of  the  violence  of  our  own  times,  to  be  no  way  anxious  to  rescue 
from  forgetfulness  the  extravagancies  of  times  past.  Besides,  what  is  all  this  to  the  present 
purpose  }  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  public  lands,  in  regard  to  which  the  attack  was 
begun  ;  and  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  those  sentiments  and  opinions,  which,  I  have  thought, 
tend  to  disunion,  and  all  of  which  the  honorable  member  seems  to  have  adopted  himself, 
and  undertaken  to  defend.  New  England  has,  at  times,  so  argues  the  gentleman,  held 
opinions  as  dangerous,  as  thoce  which  he  now  holds.  Suppose  this  were  so  ;  why  should 
he,  therefore,  abuse  New  England  ?  If  he  finds  himself  countenanced  by  acts  of  hers,  how 
is  it  that,  while  he  relies  on  these  acts,  he  covers,  or  seeks  to  cover,  their  authors  with 
reproach  }  But,  sir,  if,  in  the  course  of  forty  years,  there  have  been  undue  effervescences 
of  party  in  New  England,  has  the  same  thing  happened  no  where  else  ?  Party  animosity 
and  party  outrage,  not  in  New  England,  but  elsewhere,  denounced  President  Washington, 
not  only  as  a  Federalist,  but  as  a  Tory,  a  British  agent,  a  man,  who,  in  his  high  ofhee,  sanc- 
tioned corruption.  But  does  the  honorable  member  suppose,  that,  if  1  had  a  tender  here, 
who  should  put  such  an  effusion  of  wickedness  and  folly  in  my  hand,  that  I  would  stand  up 
and  read  it  against  the  South  ?  Parties  ran  into  great  heats,  again,  in  1799  and  1800.  What 
was  said,  sir,  or  rather  what  was  not  said,  in  those  years,  against  John  Adams,  one  of  the 
signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  its  admitted  ablest  defender  on  the  floor  of' 
Congress  ?  If  the  gentleman  wishes  to  increase  his  stores  of  party  abuse  and  frothy  vio- 
lence  ;  if  he  has  a  determined  proclivity  to  such  pursuits,  there  are  treasures  of  that  sort 
South  of  the  Potomac,  much  to  his  taste,  yet  untouched — I  shall  not  touch  them. 

The  parties  which  divided  the  country  at  the  commencement  of  the  late  war,  were  violent. 
But,  then,  there  was  violence  on  both  sides,  and  violence  iji  every  State.  Minorities  and  ma- 
jorities were  equally  violent.  There  was  no  more  violence  against  the  war  in  New  England, 
tha:i  in  other  States  ;  nor  any  more  appearance  of  violence,  except  that,  owing  to  a  dense 
population,  greater  facility  of  assembling,  and  more  presses,  there  may  have  been  more  in 
quantity,  spoken  and  printed  there,  than  in  some  other  places*  In  the  article  of  sermons, 
too,  New  England  is  somewhat  more  abundant  than  South  Carolina  ;  and,  for  that  reason, 
the  chance  of  finding  here  and  there  an  exceptionable  one,  may  be  greater.  I  hope,  too, 
there  are  more  good  ones.  Opposition  may  have  been  more  formidable  in  New  England, 
as  it  embraced  a  larger  portion  of  the  whole  population  ;  but  it  was  no  more  unrestrained  in 
its  principles,  or  violent  in  manner.  The  minorities  dealt  quite  as  harshly  with  their  own 
State  Governments,  as  the  majorities  dealt  with  the  Administration  here     There  were 


17 


presses  on  both  sides,  popular  meetings  on  both  sides,  aye,  and  pulpits  on  both  sides,  also. 
The  gentleman's  purveyors  have  only  catered  for  him  among  the  productions  of  one  side. 
I  certainly  shall  not  supply  the  deficiency  by  furnishing  samples  of  the  other.  I  leave  to 
him,  and  to  them,  the  whole  concern. 

It  is  enough  for  me  to  say,  that  if,  in  any  part  of  this,  their  grateful  occupation  ;  if,  in  all 
their  researches,  they  find  any  thing  in  the  history  of  Massachusetts,  or  New  England,  or  in 
the  proceedings  of  any  legislature,  or  other  public  body,  disloyal  to  the  Union,  speaking 
slightly  of  its  value,  proposing  to  break  it  up,  or  recommending  non  intercourse  with  neigh- 
boring States,  on  account  of  difference  of  political  opinion,  then,  sir,  I  give  them  all  up  to 
the  honorable  gentleman's  unrestrained  rebuke  ;  expecting,  however,  that  he  will  extend 
his  bufletings,  in  like  manner,  to  all  similar  proceedings,  wherever  else  found. 

The  gentleman,  sir,  has  spoken,  at  large,  of  former  parties,  now  no  longer  in  being,  by 
their  received  appellations,  and  has  undertaken  to  instruct  us,  not  only  in  the  knowledge  of 
their  principles,  but  of  their  respective  pedigrees,  also.  He  has  ascended  to  the  origin,  and 
run  out  their  genealogies.  With  most  exemplary,  modesty,  he  jpeaks  of  the  party  to  which 
he  professes  to  have  belonged  himself,  as  the  true  Pure,  the  only  honest,  patriotic  party,  de- 
rived by  regular  descent,  from  father  to  son,  from  the  time  of  the  virtuous  Romans  !  Spread- 
ing before  us  the  family  tree  of  political  parties,  he  takes  especial  care  to  show  himself,  snug- 
ly percbed  on  a  popular  bough  !  He  is  wakeful  to  the  expediency  of  adopting  such  rules  of 
descent,  as  shall  bring  him  in,  in  exclusion  of  others,  as  an  heir  to  the  iaheritance  of  all  pub- 
lic virtue,  and  all  true  political  principles.  His  party,  and  his  opinions,  are  sure  to  be  ortho- 
dox ;  heterodoxy  is  confined  to  his  opponents.  He  spoke,  sir,  of  the  Federalists,  and  I 
thought  I  saw  some  eyes  begin  to  open  and  stare  a  little,  when  he  ventured  on  that  ground. 
I  expected  he  would  draw  his  sketches  rather  lightly,  when  he  looked  on  the  circle  round 
him,  and,  especially,  if  he  should  cast  his  thoughts  to  the  high  places,  out  of  the  Senate. 
Nevertheless,  he  went  back  to  Rome,  ad  annum  urbe  condita,  and  found  the  fathers  of  the 
Federalists,  in  the  primeval  aristocrats  of  that  renowned  Empire  !  He  traced  the  flow  of 
federal  blood  down,  through  successive  ages  and  centuries,  till  he  brought  it  into  the  veins  of 
the  American  Tories,  (of  whom,  by  the  way,  there  were  twenty  in  the  Carolinas,  for  one  in 
Massachusetts.)  From  the  Tories,  he  followed  it  to  the  Federalists:  and,  as  the  Federal 
Party  was  broken  up,  and  there  was  no  possibility  of  transmitting  it  further  on  this  side  the 
Atlantic,  he  seems  to  have  discovered  that  it  has  gone  of,  collaterally,  though  against  all  the 
canons  of  descent,  into  the  Ultras  of  France,  and  finally  become  extinguished,  like  exploded 
gas,  among  the  adherents  of  Don  Miguel  !  This,  sir,  is  an  abstract  of  the  gentleman's  histo- 
ry of  Federalism.  I  am  not  about  to  controvert  it.  It  is  not,  at  preseri,  worth  the  pains  of 
refutation  ;  because,  sir,  if  at  this  day,  any  one  feels  the  sin  of  Federalism  lying  heavily  on 
his  conscience,  he  can  easily  obtain  remission.  He  may  even  have  an  indulgence,  if  he  be 
desirous  of  repeating  the  same  transgression.  It  is  an  affair  of  no  difficulty  to  get  into  this 
same  right  line  of  patriotic  descent.  A  man,  now-a-days,  is  at  liberty  to  choose  fiis  political 
parentage.  He  may  elect  his  own  father.  Federalist,  or  not,  he  may,  if  he  choose,  claim  to 
belong  to  the  favored  stock,  and  his  claim  will  be  allowed.  He  may  carry  back  his  preten- 
sions just  as  far  as  the  honorable  gentleman  himself  ;  nay,  he  may  make  himself  out  the  hon- 
orable gentleman's  own  cousin,  and  prove  satisfactorily,  thatjhe  is  descended  from  the  same 
political  great-grandfather.  All  this  is  allowable.  We  all  know  a  process,  sir,  by  which  the 
whole  Essex  Junto  could,  in  one  hour,  be  all  washed  white  from  their  ancientFederalism,  and 
come  out,  every  oae  of  them,  an  original  Democrat,  dyed  in  the  wool  !  Some  of  them  have  ac- 
tually undergone  the  operation,  and  they  say  it  is  quite  easy.  The  only  inconvenience  it  occa- 
sions, as  tl  ey  tell  us,  is  a  slight  tendency  of  the  blood  to  the  face,  a  soft  suffusion,  which, 
however,  is  very  transient,  since  nothing  is  said  by  those  whom  they  join,  calculated  to 
deepen  the  red  on  the  cheek,  but  a  prudent  silence  observed,  in  regard  to  all  the  past.  In- 
deed, sir,  some  smiles  of  approbation  have  been  bestowed,  and  some  crumbs  of  comfort  have 
fallen,  not  a  thousand  miles  from  the  door  of  the  Hartford  Convention  itself.  And  if  the  au- 
thor of  the  ordinance  of  1787  possessed  the  other  requisite  qualifications,  there  is  no  know- 
ing, not  withstanding  his  Federalism,  to  what  heights  of  favor  he  might  not  yet  attain. 

Mr.  President,  in  carrying  his  warfare,  such  as  it  was,  into  New  England,  the  honorable 
gentleman  all  along  professes  to  be  acting  on  the  defensive.  He  elects  to  consider  me  as 
having  assailed  South  Carolina,  and  insists  that  he  comes  forth  only  as  her  champion,  and  in 
her  defence.  Sir,  I  do  not  admit  that  I  made  any  attack  whatever  on  South  Carolina.  Noth- 
ing like  it.  The  honorable  member,  in  his  first  speech,  expressed  opinions,  in  regard  to 
revenue,  and  some  other  topics,  which  I  heard  both  with  pain  and  witli  surprise.  I  told  the 
gentleman  that  1  was  aware  that  such,  sentiments  were  entertained  out  of  the  Covernment, 
but  had  not  expected  to  find  them  advanced  in  it  i  that  I  knew  there  were  persons  in  the 
South  who  speak  of  our  Union  with  indiff  erence,  or  doubt,  taking  pains  to  magnify  its  evils, 
and  to  say  nothing  of  its  benefits  ;  that  the  honoiable  member  himself,  I  was  sure,  could 
never  be  one  of  these  ;  and  1  regretted  the  expression  of  such  opinions  as  he  had  avowed, 
because  I  thought  their  obvious  tendency  was  to  encourage  feelings  of  disrespect  to  the 
Union,  and  to  weaken  its  connexion.  This,  sir,  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  all  I  said  on  the 
subject.  And  this  constitutes  the  attack,  which  called  on  the  chivalry  of  the  gentleman, 
in  his  opinion,  to  harry  us  with  such  a  foray,  among  the  party  pamphlets  and  party  proceed- 
ings  of  Massachusetts  !  If  he  means  that  I  spoke  with  dissatisfaction  or  disrespect  of  the 
ebullitions  of  individuals  in  South  Carolina,  it  is  true.  Rut,  if  he  means  that  I  had  assailed 
the  character  of  the  State,  her  honor,  or  patriotism  ;  that  I  had  reflected  on  her  history  or 
2 


18 


her  conduct,  he  had  not  the  slightest  ground  for  any  such  assumption,  i  did  not  even  refer- 
1  think,  in  my  observations,  to  any  collection  of  individuals.  I  said  nothing  of  the  recent. 
Conventions.  1  spoke  in  the  most  guarded  and  careful  manner,  and  only  expressed  my  re- 
gret for  the  publication  of  opinions  which  I  presumed  the  honorable  member  disapproved 
as  much  as  myself.  In  this,  it  seems,  I  was  mistaken.  1  do  not  remember  that  the  gentle- 
man has  disclaimed  any  sentiment,  or  any  opinion,  of  a  supposed  anti-union  tendency,  which 
on  all,  or  any  of  the  recent  occasions,  has  been  expressed.  The  whole  drift  of  his  speech  has 
been  rather  to  prove,  that,  in  divers  times  and  manners,  sentiments  equally  liable  to  my  ob- 
jection have  been  promulged  in  New  England.  And  one  would  suppose  that  his  object,  in 
this  reference  to  Massachusetts,  was  to  find  a  precedent  to  justify  proceedings  in  the  South, 
were  it  not  for  the  reproach  and  contumely  with  which  he  labors,  all  along,  to  load  these,  his 
own  chosen  precedents.  By  way  of  defending  South  Carolina  from  what  he  chooses  to  think 
an  attack  on  her,  he  first  quotes  the  example  of  Massachusetts,  and  the.i  denounces  that  ex- 
ample, in  good  set  terms.  This  two-fold  purpose,  not  very  consistent  with  itself,  one  would 
think,  was  exhibited  more  than  once  in  the  course  of  his  speech.  He  referred,  for  instance,, 
to  the  Hartford  Convention.  Did  he  do  this  for  authority,  or  for  a  topic  of  reproach  ?  Ap- 
parently for  both  :  for  he  tolli  us  that  he  should  find  no  fault  with  the  mere  fact  of  holding 
such  a  Convention,  and  considering  and  discussing  such  questions  as  he  supposes  were  then 
and  there  discussed  ;  but  what  rendered  it  obnoxious  was  the  time  in  which  it  was  holden,  and 
the  circumstances  of  the  country,  then  existing.  We  were  in  a  War,  he  said,  and  the  country 
needed  all  cnir  aid — the  hand  of  Government  required  to  be  strengthened,  not  weakened — and 
patriotism  should  have  postponed  such  proceedings  to  another  day.  The  thing  itself,  then, 
is  a  precedent ;  the  time  and  manner  of  it,  only,  a  subject  of  censure.  Now,  sir,  I  go  much 
further,  on  this  point,  than  the  honorable  member.  Supposing,  as  the  gentleman  seems  to, 
that  the  Hartford  Convention  assembled  for  any  such  purpose  as  breaking  up  the  Union,  be- 
cause they  thought  unconstitutional  laws  had  been  passed,  or  to  consult  on  that  subject,  or 
to  calculate  the  value  of  the  Union supposing  this  to  be  their  purpose,  or  any  part  of  it,  then, 
I  say  the  meeting  "itself  was  disloyal,  and  was  obnoxious  to  censure,  whether  held  in  time  of 
peace  or  time  of  war,  or  under  whatever  circumstances.  The  material  question  is  the  object. 
Is  dissolution  the  object  ?  If  it  be,  external  circumstances  may  make  it  a  more  or  less  aggra- 
vated case,  but  cannot  affect  the  principle.  1  do  not  hold,  therefore,  sir,  that  the  Hartford 
Convention  was  pardonable,  even  to  the  extent  of  the  gentleman's  admission,  if  its  objects 
were  really  such  as  have  been  imputed  to  it.  Sir,  there  never  was  a  time,  under  any  degree 
of  excitement,  in  which  the  Hartford  Convention,  or  any  other  Convention,  could  maintain 
itself  one  moment  in  New  England,  if  assembled  for  any  such  purpose  as  the  gentleman  says 
would  have  been  an  allowable  purpose.  To  hold  conventions  to  decide  questions  of  consti- 
tutional law  ! — to  try  the  binding  validity  of  statutes,  by  votes  in  a  convention  !  Sir,  the 
Hartford  Convention,  I  presume,  would  not  desire  that  the  honorable  gentleman  should  be 
their  defender  or  advocate,  if  he  puts  their  case  upon  such  untenable  and  extravagant 
grounds. 

Tl\en,  sir,  the  gentleman  has  no  fault  to  find  with  these  recently  promulgated  South  Carolina 
opinions.  And,  certainly,  he  need  have  none  ;  for  his  own  sentiments,  as  now  advanced, 
and  advanced  on  reflection,  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  to  comprehend  them,  go  the  full 
length  of  all  these  opinions.  I  propose,  sir,  to  say  something  on  these,  and  to  consider  how 
far  they  are  just  and  constitutional.  Before  doing  that,  however,  let  me  observe,  that  the 
eulogium  pronounced  on  the  character  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  by  the  honorable 
gentleman,  for  her  Revolutionary  and  other  merits,  meets  my  hearty  concurrence.  I  shall 
not  acknowledge  that  the  honorable  member  goes  before  me  in  regard  for  whatever  of  dis- 
tinguished talent,  or  distinguished  character,  South  Carolina  has  produced.  I  claim  part  of 
the  honor,  I  partake  in  the  pride,  of  her  great  names.  I  claim  them  for  countrymen,  one  and 
all.  The  Lawrences,  the  Rutledges,  the  Binckneys,  the  Sumpters,  the  Marions — Americans, 
all — whose  fame  is  no  more  to  be  hemmed  in  by  State  lines,  than  their  talents  and  patriotism 
we're  capable  of  being  circumscribed  within  the  same  narrow  limits.  In  their  day  and  gen- 
t-ration, they  served  and  honored  the  country,  and  the  whole  country  ;  and  their  renown  is 
of  the  treasures  of  the  whole  country.  Him,  whose  honored  name  the  gentleman  himself 
bears — does  he  suppose  me  less  capable  of  gratitude  for  his  patriotism,  or  sympathy  for  his 
sufferings,  than  if  his  eyes  had  first  opened  upon  the  light  in  Massachusetts,  instead  of  South 
Carolina  ?  Sir,  does  he  suppose  it  in  his  power  to  exhibit  a  Carolina  name,  so  bright,  as  to 
produce  envy  in  my  bosom  ?  No,  sir,  increased  gratification  and  delight,  rather.  Sir,  I 
thank  God,  that  if  I  am  gifted  with  little  of  the  spirit  which  is  able  to  raise  mortals  to  the 
skies,  I  have  yet  none,  as  1  trust,  of  that  other  spirit,  which  would  drag  angels  down.  When 
1  shall  be  found,  sir,  in  my  place,  here,  in  the  Senate,  or  elsewhere,  to  sneer  at  public  merit, 
because  it  happened  to  spring  up  beyond  the  little  limits  of  my  own  State,  or  neighborhood  j 
when  I  refuse,  for  any  such  cause,  or  for  any  cause,  the  homage  due  to  American  talent,  to 
elevated  patriotism,  to  sincere  devotion  to  liberty  and  the  country  ;  or  if  I  see  an  uncommon 
endowment  of  heaven — if  I  see  extraordinary  capacity  and  virtue  in  any  son  of  the  South — 
and  if,  moved  by  local  prejudice,  or  gangrened  by  State  jealousy,  lget  up  here  to  abate  the 
tithe  of  a  hair  from  his  just  character  and  just  fame,  may  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of 
my  mouth  ! 

Sir,  let  me  recur  to  pleasing  recollections — let  me  indulge  in  refreshing  remembrance  of 
the  past — let  me  remind  you  that  in  early  times  no  States  cherished  greater  harmony,  both 
of  principle  and  feeling,  than  Massachusetts  and  South  Carolina.    Would  to  God,  that  bar- 


19 


mony  might  again  return  !  Shoulder  to  shoulder  they  went  through  tlic  Hevolution— hand 
in  hand  they  stood  round  the  Administration  of  Washington,  and  felt  his  own  great  arm  lean 
on  them  for  support.  Unkind  feeling,  if  it  exist,  alienation  and  distrust,  are  the  growth, 
unnatural  to  such  soils,  of  false  principles  since  sown.  They  are  weeds,  the  seeds  of  which 
that  same  great  arm  never  scattered  • 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  enter  on  no  encomiums  upon  Massachusetts — she  needs  none  There 
*;he  is — behold  her  and  judge  for  yourselves.  There  is  her  history — the  world  knows  it  by 
heart.  The  past,  at  least,  is  secure.  There  is  Boston,  and  Concord,  and  Lexington,  and 
Banket  Hill — and  there  they  will  remain  forever.  The  hones  of  her  sons,  felling  in  the  great 
struggle  for  Independence,  now  lie  mingled  with  the  soil  of  every  State,  from  New  England 
to  Georgia  5  and  there  they  will  lie  forever.  And,  sir,  where  American  liberty  raised  its  in-  ' 
fant  voice  ;  and  where  its  youth  was  nurtured  and  sustained,  there  it  still  lives,  in  the 
strength  of  its  manhood,  and  full  of  its  original  spirit.  If  discord  and  disunion  shall  wound 
it — if  party  strife  and  blind  ambition  shall  hawk  at  and  tear  it — if  folly  and  madness— if  uneasi- 
ness, under  salutary  and  necessary  restraint — shall  succeed  to  separate  it  from  that  Union, 
by  which  alone  its  existence  is  made  sure,  it  will  stand,  in  the  end,  by  the  side  of  that  cradle 
in  which  its  infancy  was  rocked  ;  it  will  stretch  forth  its  arm,  with  whatever  of  vigor  it  may 
still  retain,  over  the  friends  who  may  gather  remind  it ;  and  it  will  fall  at  last,  if  fall  it  must, 
amidst  the  proudest  monuments  of  its  own  glory,  and  on  the  very  spot  of  its  origin. 

There  yet  remains  to  be  performed,  Mr.  President,  by  far  the  most  grave  and  important 
duty,  which  I  feel  to  be  devolved  on  me,  by  this  occasion.  It  is  to  state,  and  to  defend,  what 
I  conceive  to  be  the  true  principles  of  the  Constitution  under  which  we  are  here  assembled. 
I  might  well  have  desired  that  so  weighty  a  task  should  have  fallen  into  other  and  abler  hands. 
I  could  have  wished  that  it  should  have  been  executed  by  those,  whose  character  and  ex- 
perience give  weight  and  influence  to  their  opinions,  such  as  cannot  possibly  belong  to  mine. 
But,  sir,  1  have  met  the  occasion,  not  sought  it  ;  and  I  shall  proceed  to  state  my  own  senti- 
ments, without  challenging  for  them  any  particular  regard,  with  studied  plainness,  and  as 
much  precision  as  possible. 

I  understand  the  honorable  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  to  maintain,  that  it  is  a  right 
ot  the  State  Legislatures,  to  interfere,  whenever,  in  their  judgment,  this  Government  trans- 
cends its  constitutional  limits,  and  to  arrest  the  operation  of  its  laws. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  this  right,  as  a  right  existing  under  the  Constitution  \  not  as 
a  right  to  overthrow  it,  on  the  ground  of  extreme  necessity,  such  as  would  justify  violent  re- 
volution. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  an  authority,  on  the  part  of  the  States,  thus  to  interfere,  for 
the  purpose  of  correcting  the  exercise  of  power  by  the  General  Government,  of  checking 
it,  and  of  compelling  it  to  conform  to  their  opinion  of  the  extent  of  its  powers. 

1  understand  him  to  maintain,  that  the  ultimate  power  of  judging  of  the  constitutional  ex- 
tent of  its  own  authority,  is  not  lodged  exclusively  in  the  General  Government,  or  any  branch 
of  it ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  States  may  lawfully  decide  for  themselves,  and  each 
State  for  itself,  whether,  in  a  given  case,  the  act  of  the  General  Government  transcends  its 
power. 

I  understand  him  to  insist,  that  if  the  exigency  of  the  case,  in  the  opinion  of  any  State 
Government,  require  it,  such  State  Government  may,  by  its  own  sovereign  authority,  annul 
an  act  of  the  General  Government,  which  it  deems  plainly  and  palpably  unconstitutional. 

This  is  the  sum  of  what  1  understand  from  him,  to  be  the  South  Carolina  doctrine  ;  and 
ihe  doctrine  which  he  maintains.  1  propose  to  consider  it,  and  to  compare  it  with  the  Con- 
stitution. Allow  me  to  say,  as  a  preliminary  remark,  that  I  call  this  the.  South  Carolina 
doctrine,  only  because  the  gentleman  himself  has  so  denominated  it.  1  do  not  feel  at  libcrtv 
to  say  that  South  Carolina,  as  a  >tate,  has  ever  advanced  these  sentiments.  1  hope  she  has 
not,  and  never  may.  That  a  great  majority  of  her  people  are  opposed  to  the  Tariff  laws, 
is  doubtless  true.  That  a  majority,  somewhat  less  than  that  just  mentioned,  conscientiously 
believe  those  laws  unconstitutional,  may  probably  also  be  true.  But,  that  any  majority  hold's 
to  the  right  of  direct  State  interference,  at  State  discretion,  the  right  of  nullify ing'acts  of 
Congress,  by  acts  of  State  legislation,  is  more  than  I  know,  and  what  I  shall  be  slow  to  be- 
lieve. 

That  there  are  individuals,  besides  the  honorable  gentleman,  who  do  maintain  these  opin- 
ions, is  quite  certain.  1  recollect  the  recent  express.on  of  a  sentiment,  which  circumstances 
attending  its  utterance  and  publication,  justify  us  in  supposing  was  not  unpremeditated. 
*  The  sovereignty  of  the  State — never  to  be  controlled,  construed,  or  decided  on,  but  by 
"  her  own  feelings  of  honorable  justice." 

[Mr.  IIaynk  here  rose,  and  said,  that  for  the  purpose  of  being  clearly  understood,  he 
would  state,  that  his  proposition  was  in  the  words  of  the  Virginia  resolution,  as  follows  \ 

"  That  this  Assembly  doth  explicitly  and  peremptorily  declare,  that  it  views  the  powers 
"  of  the  Federal  Government,  as  resulting  from  the  compact,  to  which  the  States  are  parties, 
M  as  limited  by  the  plain  sense  and  intention  of  the  instrument  constituting  that  compact,  n$ 
"  no  farther  valid  than  they  are  authorized  by  the  grants  enumeraled  in  that  compact ;  and 
M  that,  in  case  of  a  deliberate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise  of  other  powers,  not  grant- 
"  ed  by  the  said  compact,  the  States  who  are  parties  thereto  have  the  right,  and  are  in  duty 
"  bound  to  interpose,  for  arresting  the  progress  of  the  evil,  and  tor  maintaining,  within  their 

respective  limits,  the  authorities,  rights,  and  libcrtien,  appertaining  to  them."] 


20 


Mr.  Webst£b  resumed  s 

I  am  quite  aware,  Mr.  President,  of  the  existence  of  the  resolution  which  the  gentleman 
read,  and  has  now  repeated,  and  that  he  relies  on  it  as  his  authority.    I  know  the  source, 
too,  from  which  it  is  understood  to  have  proceeded.    I  need  not  say  that  I  have  much  re- 
spect for  the  constitutional  opinions  of  Mr.  Madison  ;  they  would  weigh  greatly  with  me, 
always.    But,  before  the  authority  of  his  opinion  be  vouched  for  the  gentleman's  proposi- 
tion, it  will  be  proper  to  consider  what  is  the  fair  interpretation  of  that  resolution,  to  which 
Mr.  Madison  is  understood  to  have  given  his  sanction.    As  the  gentleman  construes  it,  it  is 
an  authority  for  him.    Possibly,  he  may  not  have  adopted  the  right  construction.    That  reso- 
lution declares,  that,  in  the  case  of  the  dangerous  exercise  of  powers  not  granted,  by  the  Gene- 
ral Government,  the  States  may  interpose  to  arrest  the  progress  of  ihe  evil.    But  how  interpose, 
and  what  does  this  declaration  purport  ?    Does  it  mean~no  more,  than  that  there  may  be  ex- 
treme cases,  in  which  the  People,  in  any  mode  of  assembling,  may  resist  usurpation,  and 
relieve  themselves  from  a  tyrannical  government  ?    No  one  will  deny  this.    Such  resistance 
is  not  only  acknowledged  to  be  just  in  America,  but  in  England,  also.    Blackstone  admits 
as  much,  in  the  theory,  and  practice,  too,  of  the  English  Constitution.    We,  sir,  who  oppose 
the  Carolina  doctrine,  do  not  deny  that  the  People  may,  if  they  choose,  throw  off  any  go- 
vernment, when  it  become  oppressive  and  intolerable,  and  erect  a  better  in  its  stead. '  "We 
all  know  that  civil  institutions  are  established  for  the  public  benefit,  and  that  when  they 
cease  to  answer  the  ends  of  their  existence,  they  may  be  changed.    But  I  do  not  understand 
the  doctrine  now  contended  for  to  be  that  which,  for  the  sake  of  distinctness,  we  may  call 
the  right  of  revolution.    I  understand  the  gentleman  to  maintain,  that,  without  revolution, 
without  civil  commotion,  without  rebellion,  a  remedy  for  supposed  abuse  and  transgression 
of  the  powers,  of  the  General  Government  lies  in  a  direct  appeal  to'the  interference  of  the 
State  Governments.    [Mr.  Hatxe  here  rose:    He  did  not  contend,  he  said,  for  the  mere 
right  of  revolution,  but  for  the  right  of  constitutional  resistance.     "What  he  maintained, 
was,  that,  in  case  of  plain,  palpable  violation  of  the  Constitution,  by  the  General  Govern- 
ment, a  State  may  interpose ;  and  that  this  interposition  is  constitutional.]    Mr.  Wf.bsteb.  re- 
sumed :    So,  sir,  I  understood  the  gentleman,  and  am  happy  to  find  that  I  did  not  misunder- 
stand him.    What  he  contends  for,  is,  that  it  is  constitutional  to  interrupt  the  administration 
of  the  Constitution  itself,  in  the  hands  of  those  who  are  chosen  and  sworn  to  administer  it, 
by  the  direct  interference,  in  form  of  law,  of  the  States,  in  virtue  of  their  sovereign 
capacity.    The  inherent  right  in  the  People  to  reform  their  government,  I  do  not  deny ;  and 
they  have  another  right,  and  that  is,  to  resist  unconstitutional  laws,  without  overturning  the 
Government.    It  is  no  doctrine  of  mine,  that  unconstitutional  laws  bind  the  People.  The 
great  question  is,  whose  prerogative  is  it  to  decide  on  the  constitutionality  or  unconstitutionality 
of  the  laws?    On  that,  the  main  debate  hinges.    The  proposition,  that,  in  case  of  a  suppos- 
ed violation  of  the  Constitution  by  Congress,  the  States  have  a  constitutional  right  to  inter- 
fere, and  annul  the  law  of  Congress,  is  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  :  I  do  not  admit  it. 
If  the  gentleman  had  intended  no  more  than  to  assert  the  right  of  revolution,  for  justifiable 
cause,  he  would  have  said  only  what  all  agree  to.    But  I  cannot  conceive  that  there  can  be 
a  middle  course,  between  submission  to  the  laws,  when  regularly  pronounced  constitutional, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  open  resistance,  which  is  revolution,  or  rebellion,  on  the  other.  I 
say,  the  right  of  a  State  to  annul  a  law  of  Congress,  cannot  be  maintained,  but  on  the  ground 
of  the  unalienable  right  of  man  to  resist  oppression  ;  that  is  to  say,  upon  the  ground  of  revo- 
lution.   I  admit  that  there  is  an  ultimate  violent  remedy,  above  the  Constitution,  and  in  defi- 
ance of  the  Constitution,  which  may  be  resorted  to,  when  a  revolution  is  to  be  justified. 
But  I  do  not  admit  that,  under  the  Constitution,  and  in  conformity  with  it,  there  is  any  mode 
in  which  a  State  Government,  as  a  member  of  the  Union,  can  interfere  and  stop  the  pro 
gress  of  the  General  Government,  by  force  of  her  own  laws,  under  any  circumstances  whatever. 

This  leads  us  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  this  Government,  and  the  source  of  its  power. 
Whose  agent  is  it  ?  Is  it  the  creature  of  the  State  Legislatures,  or  the  creature  of  the 
People  ?  If  the  Government  of  the  United  States  be  the  agent  of  the  State  Governments, 
then  they  may  control  it,  provided  they  can  agree  in  the  manner  of  controlling  it ;  if  it  be 
the  agent  of  the  People,  then  the  People  alone  can  control  it,  restrain  it,  modify,  or  reform  it. 
It  is  observable  enough,  that  the  doctrine  for  which  the  honorable  gentleman  contends,  leads 
him  to  the  necessity  of  maintaining,  not  only  that  this  General  Government  is  the  creature 
of  the  States,  but  that  it  is  the  creature  of  each  of  the  States  severally  ;  so  that  each  may 
assert  the  power,  for  itself,  of  determining  whether  it  acts  within  the  limits  of  its  authority. 
It  is  the  servant  of  four  and  twenty  masters,  of  different  wills  and  different  purposes,  and 
yet  bound  to  obey  all.  This  absurdity  (for  it  seems  no  less)  arises  from  a  misconception  as 
to  the  origin  of  this  Government  and  its  true  character.  It  is,  sir,  the  People's  Constitution, 
the  People's  Government ;  made  for  the  People  ;  made  by  the  People  :  and  answerable  to 
the  People.  The  People  of  the  United  States  have  declared  that  this  Constitution  shall  be 
the  Supreme  Law.  We  must  either  admit  the  proposition,  or  dispute  their  authority.  The 
States  are,  unquestionably,  sovereign,  so  far  as  their  sovereignty  is  not  affected  by  this 
supreme  law.  But  the  State  Legislatures,  as  political  bodies,  however  sovereign,  are  yet 
not  sovereign  over  the  People.  So  far  as  the  People  have  given  power  to  the  General  Gov- 
ernment, so  far  the  grant  is  unquestionably  good,  and  the  Government  holds  of  the  People, 
and  not  of  the  State  Governments.  We  are  all  agents  of  the  same  supreme  power,  the 
People.  The  General  Government  and  the  State  Governments  derive  their  authority  from 
the  same  source.    Neither  can,  in  relation  to  the  other,  be  called  primary,  though  one  ia 


21 


definite  and  restricted,  and  the  other  general  and  residuary.  The  National  Government 
possesses  those  powers  which  it  can  he  show  n  the  People  have  conferred  on  it,  and  no  more. 
All  the  rest  belongs  to  the  State  Governments  or  to  the  People  themselves.  So  far  as  the 
People  have  restrained  State  sovereignty,  by  the  expression  of  their  will,  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  so  far,  it  must  be  admitted,  State  sovereignty  is  effectually  controlled. 
I  do  not  contend  that  it  is,  or  ought  to  be,  controlled  farther.  The  sentiment  to  which  I  have 
referred,  propounds  that  State  sovereignty  is  only  to  be  controlled  by  its  own  "  feeling  of  jus- 
tice ;"  that  is  to  say,  it  is  not  to  be  controlled  at  all  :  for  one  who  is  to  follow  his  own  feelings 
is  under  no  legal  control.  Now,  however  men  may  think  this  ought  to  be,  the  fact  is,  that 
the  People  of  the  United  States  have  chosen  to  impose  control  on  State  sovereignties.  There 
are  those,  doubtless,  who  wish  they  had  been  left  without  restraint;  but  the  Constitution  has 
ordered  the  matter  differently.  To  make  war,  for  instance,  is  an  exercise  of  sovereignty  ; 
but  the  Constitution  declares  that  no  State  shall  make  war.  To  coin  money  is  another  exer- 
cise of  sovereign  power  ;  but  no  State  is  at  liberty  to  coin  money.  Again,  the  Constitution 
says  that  no  sovereign  State  shall  be  so  sovereign  as  to  make  a  treaty.  Tliese  prohibitions, 
it  must  be  confessed,  are  a  control  on  the  State  sovereignty  of  South  Carolina,  as  well  as  of 
the  other  States,  which  does  not  arise  '*  from  her  own  feelings  of  honorable  justice."  Such 
an  opinion,  therefore,  is  in  defiance  of  the  plainest  provisions  of  the  Constitution. 

There  are  other  proceedings  of  public  bodies  which  have  already  been  alluded  to,  and  to 
which  I  refer  again,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  more  fully,  what  is  the  length  and  breadth 
of  that  doctrine,  denominated  the  Carolina  doctrine,  which  the  honorable  member  has  now 
stood  up  on  this  floor  to  maintain.  In  one  of  them  I  find  it  resolved,  that  "  the  Tariff  of  1828, 
M  and  ever}'  other  Tariff  designed  to  promote  one  branch  of  industry  at  the  expense  of 
•'others,  is  contrary  to  the  meaning  and  intention  of  the  Federal  compact;  and,  as  such, 
'*  a  dangerous,  palpable,  and  deliberate  usurpation  of  power,  by  a  determined  majority, 
*'  wielding  the  General  Government  beyond  the  limits  of  its  delegated  powers,  as  calls  upon 
"  the  States  which  compose  the  suffering  minority,  in  their  sovereign  capacity,  to  exercise 
M  the  powers  which,  as  sovereigns,  necessarily  devolve  upon  them,  when  their  compact 
"  is  violated." 

Observe,  sir,  that  this  resolution  holds  the  Tariff  of  1828,  and  every  other  Tariff,  designed 
to  promote  one  branch  of  industry  at  the  expense  of  another,  to  be  such  a  dangerous,  pal- 
pable.and  deliberate  usurpation  of  power,  as  calls  upon  the  States,  in  their  sovereign  capacity, 
to  interfere  by  their  own  authority.  This  denunciation,  Mr.  President,  you  will  please  to 
observe,  includes  our  old  Tariff,  of  1816,  as  well  as  all  others  ;  because  that  was  established 
to  promote  the  interest  of  the  manufactures  of  cotton,  to  the  manifest  and  admitted  injury  of 
the  Calcutta  cotton  trade.  Observe,  again,  that  all  the  qualifications  are  here  rehearsed  and 
charged  upon  the  Tariff,  which  are  necessary  to  bring  the  case  within  the  gentleman's  proposi- 
tion. The  tariff  is  a  usurpation  ;  it  is  a  dangerous  usurpation  ;  it  is  a  palpable  usurpation  ; 
it  is  a  deliberate  usurpation.  It  is  such  a  usurpation,  therefore,  as  calls  upon  the  States  to 
exercise  their  right  of  interference.  Here  is  a  case,  then,  within  the  gentleman's  principles, 
and  all  his  qualifications  of  his  principles.  It  is  a  case  for  action.  The  Constitution  is  plainly, 
dangerously,  palpably,  and  deliberately  violated  ;  and  the  States  must  interpose  their  own 
authority  to  arrest  the  law.  Let  us  suppose  the  State  of  South  Carolina  to  express  this  same 
opinion,  by  the  voice  of  her  Legislature.  That  would  be  very  imposing  ^  but  what  then  ? 
Is  the  voice  of  one  State  conclusive  ?  It  so  happens  that  at  the  very  moment  when  South 
Carolina  ,-esolves  that  the  Tariff  laws  are  unconstitutional,  Pennsylvania  and  Kentucky  resolve 
exactly  the  reverse.  17iey  hold  those  laws  to  be  both  highly  proper  and  strictly  constitu- 
tional. And  now,  sir,  how  does  the  honorable  member  propose  to  deal  with  this  case  ?  How 
docs  he  relieve  us  from  this  difficulty,  upon,  any  principle  of  his  !  His  construction  gets  us 
into  it  ;  how  does  he  propose  to  get  us  out  ? 

In  Carolina,  the  Tariff  is  a  palpable,  deliberate  usurpation  ;  CaroHna  therefore,  may  nullify 
it,  and  refuse  to  pay  the  duties.  In  Pennsylvania,  it  is  both  clearly  constitutional,  and  highly 
expedient  ;  anil  there,  the  duties  are  to  be  paid.  And  yet,  we  live  under  a  Government  of 
uniform  laws,  and  under  a  Constitution,  too,  which  contains  an  express  provision,  as  it  hap- 
pens, that  all  duties  shall  be  equal  in  all  the  Suites  I    Does  not  this  approach  absurdity  ? 

If  there  be  no  power  to  settle  such  questions,  independent  of  either  of  the  States,  is  not 
the  whole  Union  a  rope  of  sand  !  Are  we  not  thrown  back  again,  precisely,  upon  the  old 
Confederation  ! 

It  is  too  plain  to  be  argued.  Four  and  twenty  interpreters  of  constitutional  law,  each 
with  a  power  to  decide  for  itself,  and  none  with  authority  to  bind  any  body  else,  and  this  con- 
stitutional law  the  only  bond  of  their  union  !  What  is  suchja  state  of  things,  but  a  mere 
connexion  during  pleasure,  or,  to  use  the  phraseology  of  the  times,  during  feeling  ?  And 
that  feeling,  too,  not  the  feeling  of  the  People,  who  established  the  Constitution,  but  the 
feeling  of  the  State  Governments. 

In  another  of  the  South  Carolina  Addresses,  having  premised  that  the  crisis  requires  all 
the  concentrated  energy  of  passion,"  an  attitude  of  open  resistance  to  the  laws  of  the  Union 
is  advised.  Open  resistance  to  the  laws,  then,  is  the  constitutional  remedy,  the  conservative 
power  of  the  State,  which  the  South  Carolina  doctrines  teach  for  the  redress  of  political 
evils,  real  or  imaginary.  And  its  authors  further  say,  that  appealing  with  confidence  to  the 
Constitution  itself,  to  justify  their  opinions,  they  cannot  consent  to  try  their  accuracy  by  the 
Courts  of  Justice.  In  one  sense,  indeed,  sir,  this  is  assuming  an  attitude  of  open  resistance 
in  favor  of  liberty.   But  what  sort  of  liberty  }   The  liberty  of  establishing  their  own  opin- 


12 


ions,  in  defiance  of  the  opinions  of  all  others  ;  the  liberty  of  judging  and  of  deciding  exclu- 
sively themselves,  in  a  matter  in  which  others  have  as  much  right  to  judge  and  decide  as 
they  ;  the  liberty  of  placing  their  own  opinions  above  the  judgment  of  all  others,  above 
the  laws,  and  above  the  Constitution.  This  is  their  liberty,  and  this  is  the  fair  result  of  the 
proposition  contended  for  by  the  honorable  gentleman.  Or  it  may  be  more  properly  said, 
it  is  identical  with  it,  rather  than  a  result  from  it. 

In  the  same  publication,  we  find  the  following  :  "Previously  to  our  Revolution,  when  the 
arm  of  oppression  was  stretched  over  New  England,  where  did  our  Northern  brethren  meet 
with  a  braver  sympathy  than  that  which  sprung  from  the  bosoms  of  Carolinians  ?  We  hail 
no  extortion,  no  oppression,  no  collision  with  the  King's  Ministers,  no  navigation  interests 
.springing  up  in  envious  rivalry  of  England." 

This  seems  extraordinary  language.  South  Carolina  no  collision  with  the  King's  Minis- 
ters, in  1775  !  No  extortion  !  No  oppression  !  But,  sir,  it  is,  also,  most  significant  lan- 
guage. Does  any  man  doubt  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  penned  ?  Can  any  one.  fail  to 
:^ee  that  it  was  designed  to  raise  in  the  reader's  mind  the  question,  whether,  at  this  time 
— that  is  to  say,  in  1828,  South  Carolina  has  any  collision  with,  the  King's  ministers,  any  op  - 
pression, or  extortion  to  fear  from  England  ?  Whether,  in  short,  England  is  not  as  naturally 
the  friend  of  South  Carolina,  as  New  England,  with  her  navigation  interests  springing  up  in 
envious  rivalry  of  England  ? 

Is  it  not  strange,  sir,  that  an  intelligent  man  in  South  Carolina,  in  1828,  should  thus  labor 
to  prove,  that,  in  1775,  there  was  no  hostility,  no  cause  of  war  between  South  Carolina  and 
England  ?  That  she  had  no  occasion,  in  reference  to  her  own  interest,  or  from  a  regard  to 
her  own  welfare,  to  take  up  arms  in  the  revolutionary  contest  ?  Can  any  one  account  for 
the  expression  of  such  strange  sentiments,  and  their  circulation  through  the  State,  other 
wise  than  by  supposing  the  object  to  be,  what  I  have  already  intimated,  to  raise  the  question, 
if  they  had  no  "collision"  (mark  the  expression)  with  the  Ministers  of  King  George  the 
'I  bird,  in  1775,  what  collision  have  they,  in  1828,  with  the  Ministers  of  King  George  the 
Fourth  ?  What  is  there  now,  in  the  existing  state  of  things,  to  separate  Carolina  from  Old, 
more,  or  rather,  than  from  Neiv  England  ? 

Resolutions,  sir,  have  been  recently  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina.  1  need 
not  refer  to  them  :  they  go  no  farther  than  the  honorable  gentleman  himself  has  gone — and,, 
I  hope,  not  so  far.    I  content  myself,  therefore,  with  debating  the  matter  with  him. 

And  now,  sir,  what  I  have  first  to  say  on  this  subject  is,  that  at  no  time,  and  under  no  cir- 
cumstances, has  New  England, or  any  State  in  New  England,  or  any  respectable  body  of  per- 
sons in  New  England,  or  any  public  man  of  standing  in  New  England,  put  forth  such  a  doc- 
trine as  this  Carolina  doctrine. 

The  gentleman  has  found  no  case,  he  can  find  none,  to  support  his  own  opinions  by  New 
England  authority.  New  England  has  studied  the  Constitution  in  other  schools,  and  under 
other  teachers.  She  looks  upon  it  with  other  regards,  and  deems  more  highly  and  reverent- 
ly, both  of  its  just  authority,  and  its  utility  and  excellence.  The  history  of  her  legislative 
proceedings  may  be. traced — the  ephemeral  effusions  of  temporary  bodies,  called  together 
by  the  excitement  of  the  occasion,  may  be  hunted  up — they  have  been  hunted  up.  The 
opinions  and  votes  of  her  public  men,  in  and  out  of  Congress,  may  be  explored — it  will  all 
be  in  vain.  The  Carolina  doctrine  can  derive  from  her  neither  countenance  nor  support.  She 
rejects  it  now  :  she  always  did  reject  it  $  and  till  she  loses  her  senses,  she  always  will  re- 
ject it.  The  honorable  member  has  referred  to  expressions  on  the  subject  of  the  embargo 
law,  made  in  this  place  by  an  honorable  and  venerable  gentleman  [Mr.  IIillhoi'se]  now  fa- 
voring us  with  his  presence.  He  quotes  that  distinguished  Senator  as  saying,  that,  in  hit 
judgment,  the  embargo  law  was  unconstitutional,  and  that,  therefore,  in  his  opinion,  the 
People  were  not  bound  to  obey  it.  That,  sir,  is  perfectly  constitutional  language.  An  un  - 
constitutional law  is  not  binding  ;  but  then  it  does  not  rest  with  a  resolution,  or  a  law  of  u 
Mate  Legislature,  to  decide  whether  an  act  of  Congress  be,  or  be  not,  constitutional.  An 
unconstitutional  act  of  Congress  would  not  bind  the  People  of  this  District,  although  they 
have  no  legislature  to  interfere  in  their  behalf ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  constitutional  law  ol 
Congress  does  bind  the  citizens  of  every  State,  although  all  their  Legislatures  should  undertake 
to  annul  it,  by  act  or  resolution.  The  venerable  Connecticut  Senator  is  a  constitutional 
lawyer,  of  sound  principles,  and  enlarged  knowledge  5  a  statesman,  practised  and  experi- 
enced, bred  in  the  company  of  Washington,  and  holding  just  views  upon  the  nature  of  our 
Governments.  He  believed  the  embargo  unconstitutional,  and  so  did  others  ;  but  what 
then  ?  Who,  did  he  suppose,  was  to  decide  that  question  }  The  State  Legislatures  > 
Certainly  not.  No  such  sentiment  ever  escaped  his  lips.  Let  us  follow  up,  sir,  this  New 
England  opposition  to  the  Embargo  laws  ;  let  us  trace  it  till  we  discern  the  principle  which 
controlled  and  governed  Nejw  England,  throughout  the  whole  course  of  that  opposition. 
We  shall  then  see  what,  similarity  there  is  between  the  New  England  school  of  constitution- 
al opinions,  and  this  modern  Carolina  school.  The  gentleman,  I  think,  read  a  petition 
from  some  single  individual,  addressed  to  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  averting  the  Caro- 
lina doctrine— that  is,  the  right  of  State  interference  to  arrest  the  laws  of  the  Union.  The 
fate  of  that  petition  shows  the  sentiment  of  the  Legislature.  It  met  no  favor.  The  opinions 
of  Massachusetts  were  otherwise.  They  had  been  expressed  in  1798,  in  answer  to  thr  re- 
solutions of  Virginia,  and  she  did  not  depart  from  them,  nor  bend  them  to  the  times.  Mis- 
governed, wronged,  oppressed,  as  she.felt  herself  to  be,  she  stiil  held  fast  her  integrity  to 
the  Union.    The  gentleman  may  find  in  her  proceedings  much  evidence  of  dissatisfaction 


\wth  the  measures  of  the  Government,  and  great  and  deep  dislike  to  the  Embargo  ;  all  this 
makes  the  case  so  much  the  stronger  for  her  I  for,  notwithstanding  all  this  dissatisfaction 
and  dislike,  she  claimed  no  right,  still,  to  sever  asunder  the  hondsof  Union.  There  was 
heat,  and  there  was  anger,  in  h^r  political  feeling — be  it  so — her  heat  or  her  anger  did  not, 
nevertheless,  betray  her  into  infidelity  to  the  Government.  The  gentleman  labors  to  prove, 
that  she  disliked  the  Embargo,  as  much  as  South  Carolina  dislikes  the  Tariff,  and  expressed 
her  dislike  as  strongly.  lie  it  so  ;  but  did  she  propose  the  Carolina  remedy  f — did  sh> 
threaten,  to  interfere,  by  Stale  authority,  to  annul  f he  laws  of  the  Union  ?  That  is  the  ques- 
tion for  the  gentleman's  consideration. 

No  doubt,  sir,  a  great  majority  of  the  People  of  New  England  conscientiously  believed 
the  Embargo  law  of  1S07  unconstitutional ;  as  conscientiously,  certainly,  as  the  I'eople  of 
South  Carolina  hold  that  opinion  of  the  Tariff.  They  reasoned  thus  :  Congress  has  power  to 
regulate  commerce ;  but  here  is  a  law,  they  said,  stopping  all  commerce,  and  stopping  it 
indefinitely.  The  law  is  perpetual;  that  is,  it  is  not  limited  in  point  of  time,  and  must,  of 
course,  continue  until  it  anal]  be  repealed  by  some  other  law.  It  is  as  perpetual,  therefore, 
as  the  law  against  treason  or  murder.  Now,  is  this  regulating  commerce,  or  destroying  it } 
Is  it  guiding,  controlling,  giving  the  rule  to  commerce,  as  a  subsisting  thing ;  or  is  it  putting 
an  end  to  it  altogether  ?  Nothing  is  more  certain,  than  that  a  majority  in  New  England 
deemed  this  law  a  violation  of  the  Constitution.  The  very  case  recpiired  by  the  gentleman, 
to  justify  State  interference,  had  then  arisen.  Massachusetts  believed  this  law  to  be  "a  d>  • 
liberate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise  of  u  power,  not  granted  by  the  Constitution."  De- 
liberate it  was,  for  it  was  long  continued;  palpable  she  thought  it,  as  no  words  in  the  Con- 
•ititution  gave  the  power,  and  only  a  construction,  in  her  opinion  most  violent,  raised  it : 
dangerous  it  was,  since  it  threatened  utter  ruin  to  her  most  important  interests.  Here,  then, 
was  a  Carolina  case.  How  did  Massachusetts  deal  Vith  it 5  It  was,  as  she  thought,  a  plain, 
manifest,  palpable  violation  of  the  Constitution  5  and  it  brought  ruin  to  her  doors.  Thou- 
vands  of  families,  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  individuals,  were  beggared  by  it.  While 
she  saw  and  felt  all  this,  she  saw  and  felt,  also,  that,  as  a  measure  of  national  policy,  it  was 
perfectly  futile ;  that  the  country  was  no  way  benefitted  by  that  which  caused  so  much  indi- 
vidual distress ;  that  it  was  efficient  only  for  the  production  of  evil,  and  all  that  evil  inflicted 
on  ourselves.  In  such  a  case,  under  such  circumstances,  how  did  Massachusetts  demean 
herself?  Sir,  she  remonstrated,  she  memorialized,  she  addressed  herself  to  the  General  Go- 
vernment, not  exactly  "  with  the  concentrated  energy  of  passion,"  but  with  her  own  strong- 
sense,  and  the  energy  of  sober  conviction.  But  she  did  not  interpose  the  arm  of  her  own 
power  to  arrest  the  law,  and  break  the  embargo.  Far  from  it.  Her  principles  bound  her 
to  two  things;  and  she  followed  her  principles,  lead  where  they  might.  First,  to  submit  to 
every  constitutional  law  of  Congress,  and,  secondly,  if  the  constitutional  validity  of  the  law 
be  doubted,  to  refer  that  question  to  the  decision  of  the  proper  tribunals.  The  first  principle 
is  vain  and  ineffectual  without  the  second.  A  majority  of  us  in  New  England  believed  the 
embargo  law  unconstitutional ;  but  the  great  question  was,  and  always  will  be,  in  such  cases, 
who  is  to  decide  this?  Who  is  to  judge  between  the  People  and  the  Government?  And, 
sir,  it  is  quite  plain,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  confers  on  the  Government 
itaolf,  to  be  exercised  by  its  appropriate  department,  and  under  its  own  responsibility  to  the 
People,  this  power  of  deciding  ultimately  and  conclusively,  upon  the  just  extent  of  its  own 
authority.  If  this  had  not  been  done,  we  should  not  have  advanced  a  single  step  beyond  the 
Cm  federation. 

Being  fully  of  opinion  that  the  Embargo  law  was  unconstitutional,  the  People  of  New 
Bngland  were  ye*  equally  clear  in  the  opinion — it  was  a  matter  they  did  doubt  upon— that 
the  question}  after  all,  must  be  decided  by  the  Judicial  Tribunals  of  the  United  States.  Be- 
fore those  tribunals,  therefore,  they  brought  the  question.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  law  , 
they  had  given  bonds,  to  millions  in  amount,  and  which  were  alleged  to  be  footed.  They 
suff  ered  the  bouds  to  be  sued,  and  thus  raised  the  question.  In  the  old-fashioned  way  of 
settling  disputes,  they  went  to  law.  The  case  came  to  luring,  and  solemn  argument;  and 
lie  who  espoused  their  cause,  and  stood  up  for  them  agarm  the  validity  of  the  Embargo  act, 
.a^  none  other  than  that  great  man,  of  whom  the  gentlerMn  has  made  honorable  mention, 
Samukl  Dkxtlk.  He  was  then,  sir,  in  the  fullness  of  hif  knowledge,  and  the  maturity  of 
nil  strength,  lie  had  retired  from  long  and  distinguished  public  service  here,  to  the  renewed 
pursuit  of  professional  duties  ;  carrying  with  him  all  that  enlargement  and  expansion,  all  the. 
new  strength  and  force,  which  an  acquaintance  with  the  more  general  subjects  discussed  in 
the  national  councils,  is  capable  of  adding  to  professional  attainment,  in  a  mind  of  true  great- 
ness and  comprehension.  He  was  a  lawyer,  and  DC  was  also  ;i  statesman.  He  had  Studied 
'he  Constitution,  w  hen  he  filled  public  station,  that  he  might  defend  it  ;  he  had  examined  its 
principles,  that  he  might  maintain  them.  More  than  all  men,  or  at  least  as  much  as  any  man, 
he  w  as  attached  to  the  General  Government  and  to  the  union  of  the  States.  His  feelings  and 
opinions  ail  ran  in  that  direction.  A  question  of  constitutional  law,  too,  was,  of  all  subjects, 
that  one  which  was  best  suited  to  his  telents  and  learning.  Aloof  from  technicality,  and  un- 
fettered by  artificial  rules,  such  a  question  gave  opportunity  for  that  deep  and  clear  analysis, 
that  mighty  grasp  of  principle,  which  so  much  distinguished  his  higher  efforts.  His  very 
statement  was  argument ;  his  inference  seemed  demonstration.  The  earnestness  of  his  own 
conviction,  wrought  conviction  in  others.  One  was  convinced,  and  believed,  and  assented, 
because  it  was  gratifying,  delightful  to  think,  and  feel,  and  believe,  in  unison  with  an  intel- 
lect of  such  evident  superiority. 


21 


Mr.  Dexter,  sir,  such  as  1  have  described  him,  argued  the  New  England  cause.  He  put 
into  his  effort  his  whole  heart,  as  well  as  all  the  powers  of  his  understanding  ;  for  he  had 
avowed,  in  the  most  public  manner,  his  entire  concurrence  with  his  neighbors,  on  the  point 
in  dispute.  He  argued  the  cause  ;  it  was  lost,  and  New  England  submitted.  The  established 
tribunals  pronounced  the  law  constitutional,  and  New  England  acquiesced.  Now,  sir,  is  not 
this  the  exact  opposite  of  the  doctrine  of  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  ?  According  to 
him,  instead  of  referring  to  the  Judicial  tribunals,  we  should  have  broken  up  the  Embargo, 
by  laws  of  our  own  ;  we  should  have  repealed  it,  quoad  New  England  ;  for  we  had  a  strong, 
palpable,  and  oppressive  case.  Sir,  we  believed  ti  e  embargo  unconstitutional  ;  but  still, 
that  was  matter  of  opinion,  and  who  was  to  decide  it  ?  We  thought  it  a  clear  case  ;  but,  ne- 
vertheless, we  did  not  take  the  law  into  our  own  hands,  because  we  did  not  wish  to  bring 
about  a  revolution,  nor  to  break  up  the  Union.-  for,  I  maintain,  that,  between  submission  to 
the  decision  of  the  constituted  tribunals,  and  revolution,  or  disunion,  there  is  no  middle 
ground — there  is  no  ambiguous  condition,  half  allegiance,  and  half  rebellion.  And,  sir,  how 
futile,  how  very  futile,  it  is,  to  admit  the  right  of  State  interference,  and  then  attempt  to 
save  it  from  the  character  of  unlawful  resistance,  by  adding  terms  of  qualification  to  the 
causes  and  occasions,  leaving  all  these  qualifications,  like  the  case  itself,  in  the  discretion  of 
the  State  Governments.  It  must  be  a  clear  case,  it  is  said  ;  a  deliberate  case  ;  a  palpable 
case  ;  a  dangerous  case.  But  then  the  State  is  still  left  at  liberty  to  decide  for  herself, 
what  is  clear,  what  is  deliberate,  what  is  palpable,  what  is  dangerous.  Do  adjectives  and 
epithets  avail  any  thing  ?  Sir,  the  human  mind  is  so  constituted,  that  the  merits  of  both 
sides  of  a  controversy  appear  very  clear  and  very  palpable,  to  those  who  respectively 
espouse  them  ;  and  both  sides  usually  grow  clearer,  as  the  controversy  advances.  South 
Carolina  sees  unconstitutionality  in  the  Tariff  ;  she  sees  oppression  there,  also  ;  and  shesee& 
danger.  Pennsylvania,  with  a  vision  not  less  sharp,  looks  at  the  same  Tariff,  and  sees  no 
such  thing  in  it — she  sees  it  all  constitutional,  all  useful,  all  safe.'  The  faith  of  South  Caro- 
lina is  strengthened  by  opposition,  and  she  now  not  only  sees,  but  Resolves,  that  the  tariff  is 
palpably  unconstitutional,  oppressive,  and  dangerous  :  but  Pennsylvania,  not  to  be  behind 
her  neighbors,  and  equally  willing  to  strengthen  her  own  faith  by  a  confident  asseveration, 
Resolves,  also,  and  gives  to  every  warm  affirmative  of  South  Carolina,  a  plain,  downright, 
Pennsylvania  negative.  South  Carolina,  to  show  the  strength  and  unity  of  her  opinion, 
brings  her  Assembly  to  a  unanimity,  within  seven  voices  ;  Pennsylvania,  not  to  be  outdone 
in  this  respect  more  than  others,  reduces  her  dissentient  fraction  to  a  single  vote.  Now,  sir, 
again  I  ask  the  gentleman,  what  is  to  be  done  ?  Are  these  States  both  right  ?  Is  he  bound 
to  consider  them  both  right  ?  If  not,  which  is  in  the  wrong  ?  or  rather,  which  has  the  best 
right  to  decide  ?  And  if  he,  and  if  I,  are  not  to  know  what  the  Constitution  means,  and 
what  it  is,  till  those  two  State  Legislatures,  and  the  twenty  two  others,  shall  agree  in  its  con- 
struction, what  have  we  sworn  to,  when  we  have  sworn  to  maintain  it  ?  I  was  forcibly 
struck,  sir,  with  one  reflection,  as  the  gentleman  went  on  in  his  speech.  He  quoted  Mr. 
Madison's  resolutions  to  prove  that  a  State  may  interfere,  in  a  case  of  deliberate,  palpable,  and 
dangerous  exercise  of  a  power  not  granted.  The  honorable  member  supposes  the  Tariff 
law  to  be  such  an  exercise  of  power  ;  and  that,  consequently,  a  case  has.  arisen  in  which  the 
State  may,  if  it  see  fit,  interfere  by  its  own  law.  Now  it  so  happens,  nevertheless,  that  Mr. 
Madison  himself  deems  this  same  Tariff  law  quite  constitutional.  Instead  of  a  clear  and  pal- 
pable violation,  it  is,  in  his  judgment,  no  violation  at  all.  So  that,  while  they  use  his  authori- 
ty tor  a  hypothetical  case,  they  reject  it  in  the  very  case  before  them.  All  this,  sir,  shows 
the  inherent— futility — T  had  almost  used  a  stronger  word — of  conceding  this  power  of  inter- 
ference to  the  States,  and  then  attempting  to  secure  it  from  abuse  by  imposing  qualifications, 
of  which  the  States  themselves  are  to.  judge.  One  of  two  things  is  true  ;  either  the  laws  of 
the  Union  are  beyond  the  discretion,  and  beyond  the  control  of  the  States  ;  or  else  we  have 
no  Constitution  of  General  Government,  and  are  thrust  back  again  to  the  days  of  the  Con- 
federacy. 

Let  me  here  say,  sir,  that  if  the  gentleman's  doctrine  had  been  received  and  acted  upon 
in  New  England,  in  the  times  of  the  embargo  and  non-intercourse,  we  should  probably  not 
now  have  been  here.  The  Government  would,  very  likely,  have  gone  to  pieces,  and 
crumbled  into  dust.  No  stronger  case  can  ever  arise  than  existed  Under  those  laws ;  no  States 
can  ever  entertain  a  clearer  conviction  than  the  New  England  States  then  entertained  ;  and  if 
they  had  been  under  the  influence  of  that  heresy  of  opinion,  as  I  must  call  it,  which  the  ho- 
norable member  espouses,  this  Union  would,  in  all  probability,  have  been  scattered  to  the 
four  winds.  I  ask  the  gentleman,  therefore,  to  apply  his  principles  to  that  case  ;  1  ask  him  to 
come  forth  and  declare,  whether,  in  his  opinion,  the  New  England  States  would  have  been 
justified  in  interfering  to  break  up  the  embargo  system,  under  the  conscientious  opinions 
which  they  held  upon  it  ?  Had  they  a  right  to  annul  that  law  Does  he  admit  or  deny  > 
If  that  which  is  thought  palpably  unconstitutional  in  South  Carolina,  justifies  that  State  in 
arresting  the  progress  of  the  law,  tell  me,  whether  that  which  was  thought  palpably  uncon- 
stitutional also  in  Massachusetts,  would  have  justified  her  in  doing  the  same  thing  ?  Sir,  I  deny 
the  whole  doctrine.  It  has  not  a  foot  of  ground  in  the  Constitution  to  stand  on.  No  pub- 
lic man  of  reputation  ever  advanced  it  in  Massachusetts,  in  the  warmest  times,  or  coukl  main- 
tain himself  upon  it  there  at  any  time. 

I  wish  now,  sir,  to  make  a  remark  upon  the  Virginia  Resolutions  of  1798.  I  cannot  un 
dertake  to  say  how  these  resolutions  w  ere  understood  by  those  who  passed  them.  Their  lan- 
guage is  not  a  little  indefinite.    In  the  case  of  the  exercise,  by  Congress,  of  a  dangerous 


25 


power,  not  granted  to  them,  the  resolutions  assert  the  right,  on  the  part  of  the  State,  to 
interfere,  and  arrest  the  progress  of  the  evil.  This  is  susceptible  of  more  than  one  inter- 
pretation. It  may  mean  no  more  than  that  the  States  may  interfere  by  complaint  and  re- 
monstrance ;  or  by  proposing  to  the  People  an  alteration  of  the  Federal  Constitution.  This 
would  all  be  quite  unobjectionable  :  or,  it  may  be,  that  no  more  is  meant  than  to  assert  the 
general  right  of  revolution,  as  against  all  Governments,  in  cases  of  intolerable  oppression. 
This  no  one  doubts  ;  and  this,  in  my  opinion,  is  all  that  he  wbo  framed  the  resolutions  could 
have  meant  by  it :  for  I  shall  not  readily  believe,  that  he  was  ever  of  opinion  that  a  State, 
under  the  Constitution,  and  in  conformity  with  it,  could,  upon  the  ground  of  her  own  opinion 
of  its  unconstitutionality,  however  clear  and  palpable  she  might  thinlc  the  case,  annul  a  law 
of  Congress,  so  far  as  it  should  operate  on  herself,  by  her  own  legislative  power. 

I  must  now  beg  to  ask,  sir,  whence  is  this  supposed  right  of  the  States  derived  r — where 
do  they  find  the  power  to  interfere  with  the  laws  of  the  Union  5  Sir,  the  opinion  winch  the 
honorable  gentleman  maintains,  is  a  notion,  founded  in  a  total  misapprehension,  in  my  judg- 
ment, of  the  origin  of  this  Government,  and  of  the  foundation  on  which  it  stands.  I  hold  it 
to  be  a  popular  Government,  erected  by  the  People  ;  those  who  administer  it  responsible  to 
the  People  j  and  itself  capable  of  being  amended  and  modified,  just  as  the  People  may  choose 
it  should  be.  It  is  as  popular,  just  as  truly  emanating  from  the  People,  as  the  State  Go- 
vernments. It  is  created  for  one  purpose  ;  the  State  Governments  for  another.  It  has  its 
own  powers  ;  they  have  theirs.  There  is  no  more  authority  with  them  to  arrest  the  operation 
of  a  law  of  Congress,  than  with  Congress  to  arrest  the  operation  of  their  laws.  We  are  here 
to  administer  a  Constitution  emanating  immediately  from  the  People,  and  trusted,  by  them, 
to  our  administration.  It  is  not  the  creature  of  the  State  Governments.  It  is  of  no  moment 
to  the  argument,  that  certain  acts  of  the  State  Legislatures  are  necessary  to  fill  our  seats  in 
this  body.  That  is  not  one  of  their  original  State  powers,  a  part  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
State.  It  is  a  duty  which  the  People,  by  the  Constitution  itself,  have  imposed  on  the  State 
Legislatures  ;  and  which  they  might  have  left  to  be  performed  elsewhere,  if  they  had  seen 
fit.  So  they  have  left  the  choice  of  President  with  electors  j  but  all  this  does  not  affect  the 
proposition,  that  this  whole  Government,  President,  Senate,  and  House  of  Representatives, 
is  a  popular  Government.  It  leaves  it  still  all  its  popular  character.  The  Governor  of  a 
State,  (in  some  of  the  States)  is  chosen,  not  directly  by  the  People,  but  by  those  who  arc 
chosen  by  the  People,  for  the  purpose  of  performing,  among  other  duties,  that  of  electing 
a  Governor.  Is  the  Government  of  a  State,  on  that  account,  not  a  popular  Government  f 
This  Government,  sir,  is  the  independent  offspring  of  the  popular  will.  It  is  not  the  creature 
of  State  Legislatures  ;  nay,  more,  if  the  whole  truth  must  be  told,  the  People  brought  it  into 
existence,  established  it,  and  .  have  hitherto  supported  it,  for  the  very  purpose,  amongst 
others,  of  imposing  certain  salutary  restraints  on  State  sovereignties.  The  States  cannot 
now  make  war  ;  they  cannot  contract  alliances  ;  they  cannot  make,  each  for  itself,  separate 
regulations  of  commerce  ;  they  cannot  lay  imposts  ;  they  cannot  coin  money.  If  this  Con- 
stitution, sir,  be  the  creature  of  State  Legislatures,  it  must  be  admitted  that  it  has  obtained 
a  strange  control  over  the  volitions  of  its-creators. 

The  People,  then,  sir,  erected  this  Government.  They  gave  it  a  Constitution,  and  in  that 
Constitution  they  have  enumerated  the  powers  which  they  bestow  on  it.  They  have  made 
it  a  limited  Government.  They  have  defined  its  authority.  They  have  restrained  it  to  the 
exercise  of  such  powers  as  are  granted;  and  all  others,  they  declare,  are  reserved  to  the 
States  or  the  People.  But,  sir,  they  have  not  stopped  here.  If  they  had,  they  would  have 
accomplished  but  half  their  work.  No  definition  can  be  so  clear,  as  to  avoid  possibility  of 
doubt  ;  no  limitation  so  precise,  as  to  exclude  all  uncertainty.  Who,  then,  shall  construe 
this  gi  ant  of  the  People  1  Who  shall  interpret  their  will,  where  it  may  be  supposed  they 
have  left  it  doubtful  I  With  whom  do  they  repose  this  ultimate  right  of  deciding  on  the  pow- 
ers of  the  Government  J  Sir,  they  have  settled  all  this  in  the  fullest  manner.  They  have 
left  it,  with  the  Government  itself,  in  its  appropriate  branches.  Sir,  the  very  chief  end,  the 
main  design,  for  which  the  whole  Constitution  was  framed  and  adopted,  was  to  establish  a 
Government  that  should  not  be  obliged  to  act  through  State  agency,  or  depend  on  State 
opinion  and  State  discretion.  The  People  had  had  quite  enough  of  that  kind  of  Govern- 
ment, under  the  Confederacy.  Under  that  system,  the  legal  action — the  application  of  law 
to  individuals,  belonged  exclusively  to  the  States.  Congress  could  only  recommend — their 
acts  were  not  of  binding  force,  till  the  States  hail  adopted  and  sanctioned  them.  Are  we  in 
that  condition  still  !  Are  we  yet  at  the  mercy  of  State  discretion,  and  State  construction  I 
Sir,  if  we  are,  then  vain  will  be  our  attempt  to  maintain  the  Constitution  under  which  we  sit. 

But,  sir,  the  People  have  wisely  provided,  in  the  Constitution  itself,  a  proper,  suitable 
mode  and  tribunal  for  settling  questions  of  constitutional  law.  There  are,  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, grants  of  powers  to  Congress  ;  and  restrictions  on  these  powers.  There  are,  also,  pro- 
hibitions on  the  States.  Some  authority  must,  therefore,  necessarily  exist,  having  the  ulti- 
mate jurisdiction  to  fix  and  ascertain  the  interpretation  of  these  grants,  restrictions,  and  pro- 
hibitions. The  Constitution  has  itself  pointed  out,  ordained,  and  established  that  authority. 
How  has  it  accomplished  this  great  and  essential  end  1  By  declaring,  sir,  that  *•  the  Consti- 
tution and  the  I  iws  of  the  Cnited  Stales  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land,  any  thing  m  the  Constitution  or  laics  of  any  State,  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.'* 
This,  s't,  was  the  first  great  step.  By  this,  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  of 
the  United  States  is  declared.  The  People  so  will  it.  No  State  law  is  to  be  valid,  which 
cornea  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution,  or  any  law  of  the  United  States.    But  who  shall 


26 


decide  tills  question  of  interference?  To  whom  lies  the  last  appeal  ?  This,  sir,  the  Const: 
tution  itself  decides,  also,  by  declaring1,  "thctf  the  Judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  ari- 
sing under  the  Constitution  and  Laws  of  the  United  Stales."  These  two  provisions,  sir, 
cover  the  whole  ground.  They  are,  in  truth,  the  key-stone  of  the  arch.  With  these,  it  is 
a  Constitution  ;  without  them,  it  is  a  Confederacy.  In  pursuance  of  these  clear  and  express 
provisions,  Congress  established,  at  its  very  first  session,  in  the  Judicial  act,  a  mode  for  carry- 
ing them  into  full  effect,  and  for  bringing  all  questions  of  constitutional  power  to  the  final 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  It  then,  sir,  became  a  Government.  It  then  had  the  means 
of  self  protection  ;  and,  but  for  this,  it  would  in  all  probability  have  been  now  among  things 
which  are  past.  Having  constituted  the  Government,  and  declared  its  powers,  the  People 
have  further  said,  that  since  somebody  must  decide  on  the  extent  of  these  powers,  the  Go- 
vernment shali  itself  decide  ;  subject,  always,  like  oilier  popular  governments,  to  it*s  respon  - 
sibility to  the  People.  And  now,  sir,  I  repeat,  how  is  it  that  a  State  Legislature  acquires  any 
power  to  interfere  ?  Who,  or  what,  gives  them  the  right  to  say  to  the  People,  "  We,  who 
are  your  agents  and  servants  for  one  purpose,  will  undertake  to  decide,  that  your  other  agents 
and  servants,  appointed  by  you  for  another  purpose,  have  transcended  the  authority  you  gave 
them  !"  The  reply  would  be,  I  think,  not  impertinent—"  Who  made  you  a  judge  over  ano- 
ther's servants  ?    To  their  own  masters  they  stand  or  fall." 

Sir,  I  deny  this  power  of  State  Legislatures  altogether.  It  cannot  stand  the  test  of  exami- 
nation. Gentlemen  may  say,  that,  in  an  extreme  case,  a  State  Government  might  protect  the 
People  from  intolerable  oppression.  Sir,  in  such  a  case,  the  People  might  protect  them- 
selves, without  the  aid  of  the  State  Governments.  Such  a  case  warrants  revolution.  It  must 
make,  when  it  comes,  a  law  for  itself.  A  nullifying  act  of  a  State  Legislature  cannoj  alter 
the  case,  nor  make  resistance  any  more  lawful.  In  maintaining  these  sentiments,  sir,  lam 
but  asserting  the  rights  of  the  People.  \  state  what  they  have  declared,  and  insist  on  their 
right  to  declare  it.  They  have  chosen  to  repose  this  .power  in  the  General  Government,  and 
[  think  it  my  duty  to  support  it,  like  other  constitutional  powers. 

For  myself,  sir,  I  do  not  admit  the  jurisdiction  of  South  Carolina,  or  any  other  State,  to 
prescribe  my  constitutional  duty,  or  to  settle,  between  me  and  the  People,  the  validity  of 
,  laws  of  Congress,  for  which  I  have  voted.  I  decline  her  umpirage.  I  have  not  sworn  to 
support  the  Constitution  according  to  her  construction  of  its  clause*?.  I  have  not  stipulated, 
by  my  oath  of  office,  or  otherwise,  to  come  under  any  responsibility,  except  to  the  People, 
and  those  whom  they  have  appointed  to  pass  upon  the  question,  whether  laws,  supported  by 
my  votes,  conform  to  the  Constitution  of  the  country.  And,  sir,  if  we  look  to  the  general  na- 
ture of  the  case,  could  any  thing  have  been  more  preposterous,  than  to  make  a  Government 
for  the  whore  Union,andyet  leave  its  powers  subject,not  to  one  interpretation, but  to  thirteen, 
or  twenty-four,  interpretations  ?  Instead  of  one  tribunal,  established  by  all,  responsible  to  all, 
with  power  to  decide  for  all — shall  constitutional  questions  be  left  to  four  and  twenty  popular 
bodies,  each  at  liberty  to  decide  for  itself,  and  none  bound  to  respect  the  decisions  of  others  ; 
and  each  at  liberty,  too,  to  give  a  new  construction  on  every  new  election  of  its  own  members  ? 
Would  any  thing,  with  such  a  principle  in  it,  or  rather  with  such  a  destitution  of  all  princi- 
ple, be  fit  to  be  called  a  Government ?  No,  sir.  It  should  not  be  denominated  a  Constitu- 
tion. It  should  be  called,  rather,  a  collection  of  topics,  for  everlasting  controversy  ;  heads 
of  debate  lor  a  disputatious  People.  It  would  not  be  a  Government,  it  would  not  be  ade- 
quate to  any  practical  good,  nor  fit  for  any  country  to  live  under.  To  avoid  all  possibility  of 
being  misunderstood,  allow  me  to  repeat  again,  in  the  fullest  manner,  that  I  claim  no  pow- 
ers for  the  Government  by  forced  or  unfair  construction.  I  admit,  that  it  is  a  Government 
of  strictly  limited  powers  ;  of  enumerated,  specified,  and  particularised  powers  ;  and  that  what- 
soever is  not  granted,  is  withheld.  But  notwithstanding  all  this,  and  however  the  grant  of 
powers  may  be  expressed,  its  limit  and  extent  may  yet,  in  some  cases,  admit  of  doubt ;  and 
the  General  Government  would  be  good  for  nothing,  it  would  be  incapable  of  long  existing, 
*if  some  mode  had  not  been  provided,  in  which  these  doubts,  as  they  should  arise,  might  he 
peaceably,  but  authoritatively,  solved. 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  let  me  run  the  honorable  gentleman's  doctrine  a  little  into  its 
practical  application.  Let  us  look  at  his  probable  modus  operandi.  If  a  thing  can  be  done, 
an  ingenious  man  can  tell  how  it  is  to  be  done.  Now,  I  wish  to  be  informed  how  this  State 
interfere  nee  is  to  be  put  in  practice,  without  violence,  bloodshed,  and  rebellion.  We  will 
take  the  existing  case  of  the  Tariff  law.  South  Carolina  is  said  to  have  made  up  her  opi- 
nion upon  it.  If  we  do  not  repeal  it,  (as  we  probably  shall  nofl|)  she  will  then  apply  to  the 
case  the  remedy  of  her  doctrine.  She  will,  we  must  suppose,  pass  a  law  of  her  Legislature, 
declaring  the  several  acts  of  Congress,  usually  called/the  Tariff  haws,  null  and  void,  so  far  as 
they  respect  South  Carolina,  or  the  citizens  thereof.  So  far,  all  is  a  paper  transaction,  and 
easy  enough,  hut  the  Collector  at  Charleston  is  collecting  the  duties  imposed  by  these 
Tariff  Laws—  he,  therefore,  must  be  stopped.  The  Collector  will  seize  the  goods  if  the 
Tariff  dutie s  arc  not  paid.  The  State  authorities  will  undertake  their  rescue  :  the  Marshal, 
with  his  posse,  will  come  t»  the  Collector's  aid,  and  here  the  contest  begins.  The  militia 
of  the  State  will  be  called  out  to  sustain  the  nullifying  act.  They  will  march,  sir,  under  a 
very  gallant  leader:  for  I  believe  the  honorable  member  himself  commands  the  militia  of 
t  hat  part  of  the  Slate.  He  will  raise  the  rruiArr yino  act  on  his  standard,  and  spread  it  out 
as  his  banner  !  It  will  have  a  preamble,  bearing,  that  the  Tariff  Laws  are  palpable,  delibe- 
rate, and  dangerous  violations  of  the  Constitution  !  He  will  proceed,  with  this  banner  Hying, 
to  the  custom-house  in  Charleston  : 


27 


"All  the  wink, 
"  Sonorous  nu  tal  blowing  martial  koiimIi."  9 

Arrived  at  the  custom-house,  lie  will  teli  the  Collector  that  he  must  collect  no  more  dutie:; 
under  any  of  the  Tariff  laws.  This,  he  will  be  somewhat  puzzled  to  say,  by  the  way,  with 
a  grave  countenance,  considering  what  hand  South  Carolina  herself  had  in  tlrat  of  181f>. 
But,  sir,  the  Collector  would,  probably,  not  desist  at  his  bidding — here  would  ensue  a  pause; 
for  they  say,  that  a  certain  stillness  precedes  the  tempest.  Before  this  mili%  ry  array  should 
fall  on  the  customhouse,  collector,  clerks,  and  all,  it  is  very  probable  some  of  those  com- 
posing- it,  would  request  of  their  gallant  commander-in-chief,  to  be  informed  a  little  upon 
the  point  of  law  ;  for  they  have,  doubtless,  a  just  respect  for  his  opinions  as  a  lawyer,  as  well 
as  for  his  bravery  as  a  soldier.  They  know  he  has  read  Blackstone  and  the  Constitution,  as 
well  as  Turrene  and  Vauban.  They  would  ask  him,  therefore,  something  concerning  their 
rights  in  this  matter.  They  would  inquire,  whether  it  was  not  somewhat  dangerous  to  resist 
a  law  of  the  United  States.  What  would  be  the  nature  of  their  offence,  they  would  wish  to 
learn,  if  they,  by  military  force  and  array,  resisted  the  execution,  in  Carolina,  of  a  law  of  the 
United  States,  and  it  should  turn  out,  after  all,  that  the  law  was  constitutional ?  lie  would 
answer,  of  course,  treason.  No  lawyer  could  give  any  other  answer.  John  Fries,  he  would 
tell  them,  had  learned  that  some  years  ago.  How,  then,  they  Would  ask,  do  you  pre.pose  to 
defend  us?  We  are  not  afraid  of  bullets,  but  treason  has  a  way  of  taking  people  ofr,  that 
we  do  not  much  relish.  How  do  you  propose  to  defend  us  }  "Look  at  my  floating  bur- 
ner," he  would  reply  ;  "  see  there  the  nullifying  law  /"  Is  it  your  opinion,  gallant  com  - 
mander, they  would  then  say,  that  if  we  should  be  indicted  for  treason,  that  same  floating 
banner  of  your's  would  make  a  good  plea  in  bar  ?  "South  Carolina  is  a  sovereign  State," 
lie  would  reply.  That  is  true— but  would  the  Judge  admit  our  plea  ?  "  These  Tariff 
laws,"  he  would  repeat,  "are  unconstitutional,  palpably,  deliberately,  dangerously."  That 
all  may  be  so  ;  but  if  the  tribunals  should  not  happen  to  be  of  that  opinion,  shall  we  swing 
for  it  ?  We  are  ready  to  die  for  our  country,  but  it  is  rather  an  awkward  business,  this  dying 
without  touching  the  ground  !  Alter  all,  that  is  a  sort  of  hernp-Vxx,  worse  than  anv  part  of 
the  Tariff*. 

Mr.  President,  the  honorable  gentleman  would  be  in  a  dilemma,  like  that  of  another 
great  General.  He  would  have  a  knot  before  him  which  he  could  not  untie  :  he  must  cut 
it  with  his  sword.  He  must  say  to  his  followers,  defend  yourselves  with  your  bayonets  :  and 
this  is  war — civil  war. 

Direct  collision,  therefoie,  between  force  and  force,  is  the  unavoidable  result  of  that 
remedy  for  the  revision  of  unconstitutional  laws,  which  the  gentleman  contends  for.  It 
must  happen  in  the  very  first  case  to  which  it  is  applied.  Is  net  this  the  plain  result  ?  To 
resist,  by  force,  the  execution  of  a  law,  generally,  is  treason.  Can  the  Courts  of  the  United 
States  take  notice  of  the  indulgence  of  a  Stato  to  commit  treason  1  The  common  saying, 
that  a  Slate  cannot  commit  treason  herself,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  Can  she  authorize 
others  to  do  it  3  If  John  Fries  had  produced  an  act  of  Pennsylvania,  annulling  the  law  of 
Congress,  would  it  have  helped  his  case  ?  Talk  about  it  as  we  will,  these  doctrines  go  the 
length  of  revolution.  They  are  incompatible  with  any  peaceable  administration  of  the 
Government.  They  lead  directly  to  disunion  and  civil  commotion^  and  therefore,  it  is, 
that  at  their  commencement,  when  they  arc  first  found  to  be  maintained  by  respectable 
men,  and  in  a  tangible  form,  I  enter  my  public  protest  against  them  all. 

The  1.  Miorable  gentleman  argues,  that  if  this  Government  be  the  sole  judge  of  the  ex- 
tent of  its  own  powers,  whether  that  right  of  judging  be  in  Congress,  or  the  Supreme  Court, 
it  equally  subverts  State  sovereignty.  This  the  gentleman  sees,  or  thinks  he  sees,  although 
he  cannot  perceive  how  the  right  of  judging,  in  this  matter,  if  left  to  the  exercise  of  State 
Legislatures,  has  any  tendency  to  subvert  the  Government  of  the  Union.  The  gentleman's 
opinion  may  be,  that  the  right  oug.'tf  not  to  have  been  lodged  with  the  General  Government  ; 
he  may  like  better  such  a  Constitution,  as  we  should  have  Under  the  right  of  State  interfe- 
rence ;  but  I  ask  him  to  meet  me  on  the  plain  matter  of  fact — I  ask  him  to  meet  me  on  the 
Constitution  itself" — I  ask  him  if  the  power  is  not  found  there — clearly  and  visibly  found 
there  } — Notk  .>. 

Hut,  sir,  what  is  this  danger,  and  what  the  grounds  of  it  ?  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  not  unalterable.  It  is  to  continue  in  its  present  form  no 
longer  than  the  1'eople,  who  established  it,  shall  chuse  to  continue  it.  If  they  shall  become 
convinced  that  they  have  made  an  injudicious  or  inexpedient  partition  and  distribution  of 
power,  between  the  State  Governments  and  the  General  Government',  they  can  alter  thai 
distribution  at  will. 

If  any  thing  be  found  in  the  National  Constitution,  either  by  original  provision,  or  fubsei 
quant  interpretation,  w  hich  ought  not" to  be  in  it,  the  People  know  how  to  get  rid  of  it.  If 
any  construction  be  established,  unacceptable  to  them,  so  as  to  become,  practically,  I  part 
of  the  Constitution,  the}'  will  amend  it  at  their  own  sovereign  pleasure.  Rut  while  the 
People  chase  to  maintain  it,  a9  it  is ;  while  they  arc  satisfied  with  it,  and  refuse  to  change  it  ; 
who  has  given,  or  %  bo  ran  give,  to  the  State  Legislatures  a  right  to  alter  it,  either  by  inter- 
ference, construction,  or  otherwise?  Gentlemen  do  not  seem  to  recollect  that  the  People 
have  any  power  to  do  any  thing  for  themselves;  they  imagine  there  is  no  safety  for  them, 
any  longer  than  they  are  under  the  close  guardianship  of  the  State  Legislature*.  Sir,  the 
"eople  have  not  trusted  their  safety,  in  regard  to  the  General  Constitution,  to  these  hand.-. 
They  have  required  other  security,  and  taken  other  bonds.    They  have  chosen  to  trust 


28 


themselves,  first,  to  the  plain  words  of  the  instrument,  and  to  such  construction  as  the  Gov. 
ernment  itself,  in  doubtful  cases,  should  put  on  its  own  powers,  under  their  oaths  of  office, 
and  subject  to'their  responsibility  to  them  ;  just  as  the  People  of  a  State  trust  their  own 
State  Governments  with  a  similar  power.  Secondly,  they  have  reposed  their  trust  in  the 
efficacy  of  frequent  elections,  and  in  their  own  power  to  remove  their  own  servants  and 
agents,  whenever  they  see  cause.  Thirdly,  they  have  reposed  trust  in  the  Judicial  power, 
which,  in  order  that  it  might  be  trust-worthy,  they  have  made  as  respectable,  as  disinte- 
rested, and  as  independent  as  was  practicable.  Fourthly,  they  have  seen  fit  to  rely,  in  case 
of  necessity,  or  high  expediency,  on  their  known  and  admitted  power,  to  alter  or  amend  the 
Constitution,  peaceably  and  quietly,  whenever  experience  shall  point  out  defects  or  imper- 
fections, And,  finally,  the  People  of  the  United  States  have,  at  no  time,  in  no  way,  directly 
or  indirectly,  authorized  any  State  Legislature  to  construe  or  interpret  their  high  instrument 
of  Government :  much  less  to  interfere,  by  their  own  power,  to  arrest  its  course  and  ope- 
ration. 

If,  sir,  the  People,  in  these  respects,  had  done  otherwise  than  they  have  done,  their 
Constitution  could  neither  have  been  preserved,  nor  would  it  have  been  worth  preserving. 
And,  if  its  plain  provisions  shall  now  be  disregarded,  and  these  new  doctrines  interpolated 
in  it,  it  will  become  as  feeble  and  helpless  a  being  as  its  enemies,  whether  early  or  more 
recent,  could  possibly  desire.  It  will  exist  in  every  State,  but  as  a  poor  dependent  on 
State  permission.  It  must  borrow  leave  to  be ;  and  will  be,  no  longer  than  State  pleasure, 
or  State  discretion,  sees  fit  to  grant  the  indulgence,  and  to  prolong  its  poor  existence. 

But,  sir,  although  there  are  fears,  there  are  hopes  also.  The  People  have  preserved 
this,  theip  own  chosen  Constitution,  for  forty  years,  and  have  seen  their  happiness,  prospe- 
rity, and  renown,  grow  with  its  growth,  and  strengthen  with  its  strength.  They  are  now, 
generally,  strongly  attached  to  it.  Overthrown  by  direct  a'ssault,  it  cannot  be  ;  evaded, 
undermined,  nullified,  it  will  not  be,  if  we,  and  those  who  shall  succeed  us  here,  as  agents 
and  representatives  of  the  People,  shall  conscientiously  and  vigilantly  discharge  the  two 
great  branches  of  our  public  trust — faithfully  to  preserve,  and  wisely  to  administer  it. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  thus  stated  the  reasons  of  my  dissent  to  the  doctrines  which  have 
been  advanced  and  maintained.  I  am  conscious  of  having  detained  you  and  the  Senate 
much  too  long.  I  was  drawn  into  the  debate,  with  no  previous  deliberation,  such  as  13 
suited  to  the  discussion  of  so  grave  and  important  a  subject.  But  it  is  a  subject  of  which 
my  heart  is  full,  and  I  have  not  been  willing  to  suppress  the  utterance  of  its  spontaneous 
sentiments.  I  cannot,  even  now,  persuade  myself  to  relinquish  it,  without  expressing,  once 
more,'  my  deep  conviction,  that,  since  it  respects  nothing  less  than  the  Union  of  the  States, 
it  is  of  most  vital  and  essential  importance  to  the  public  happiness.  I  profess,  sir,  in  my 
career,  hitherto,  to  have  kept  steadily  in  view  the  prosperity  and  honor  of  the  whole  coun- 
try, and  the  preservation  of  our  Federal  Union.  It  is  to  that  Union  we  owe  our  safety  at 
home,  and  our  consideration  and  dignity  abroad.  It  is  to  that  Union  that  we  are  chiefly  in- 
debted for  whatever  makes  us  most  proud  of  our  country.  That  Union  we  reached  only 
by  the  discipline  of  our  virtues  in  the  severe  school  of  adversity.  It  had  its  origin  in  the 
necessities  of  disordered  finance,  prostrate  commerce,  and  ruined  credit.  Under  its  benign 
influences,  these  great  interests  immediately  awoke,  as  from  the  dead,  and  sprang  forth 
with  newness  of  life,  ilvery  year  of  its  duration  has  teemed  with  fresh  proofs  ai'  its  utility 
and  its  blessings  ;  and,  although  our  territory  has  stretched  out  wider  and  wider,  and  our 
population  spread  farther  and  farther,  they  have  not  outrun  its  protection  or  its  benefits.  •  It 
has  been  to  us  all  a  copious  fountain  of  national,  social,  and  personal  happiness.  I  have  not 
allowed  myself,  sir,  to  look  beyond  the  Union,  to  see  what  might  lie  hidden  in  the  dark  re- 
cess behind,  I  have  not  coolly  weighed  the  chances  of  preserving  liberty,  when  the  bonds 
that  unite  us  together  shall  be  broken  asunder.  I  have  not  accustomed  myself  to  hang  over 
the  precipice  of  disunion,  to  see  whether,  with  my  short  sight,  I  cjvn  fathom  the  depth  of 
the  abyss  below;  nor  could  I  regard  him  as  a  safe  counsellor  in  the  affairs  of  this  Govern, 
ment,  whose  thoughts  should  be  mainly  bent  on  considering,  not  how  the  Union  should  be 
beat  preserv  ed,  but  how  tolerable  might  be  the  condition  of  the  People  when  it  shall  be 
broken  up  and  destroyed.  While  the  Union  lasts,  we  have  high,  exciting,  gratifying  pros- 
pects spread  out  before  us,  for  us  and  our  children.  Beyond  that  I  seek  not  to  penetrate 
the  veil.  God  grant  that,  in  my  day  at  least,  that  curtain  may  not  rise.  God  grant  that 
on  my  vision  never  may  be  opened  what  lies  behind.  When  my  eyes  shall  be  turned  to 
behold,  for  the  last  time,  the  sun  in  Heaven, "may  I  not  see  him  shining  on  the  broken  and 
dishonored  fragments  of  a  once  glorious  Union  \  on  States  dissevered,  discordant,  bellige- 
rent ;  on  a  land  rent  with  civil  feuds,  or  drenched,  it  may  be,  in  fraternal  blood  !  Let  their 
last  feeble  and  lingering  glance  rather  behold  the  gorgeous  Ensign  of  the  Republic,  now 
known  and  honored  throughout  the  earth,  still  full  high  advanced,  its  arms  and  trophies 
streaming  in  their  original  lustre,  not  a  stripe  erased  or  polluted,  nor  a  single  star  obscured, 
bearing  for  its  motto  no  such  miserable  interrogatory  as,  What  is  all  this  worth  ?  Nor  those 
other  words  of  delusion  and  folly,  Liberty  first,  and  Union  afterwards;  but  every  where, 
spread  all  over  in  characters  of  living  light,  blazing  on  all  its  ample  folds,  as  they  float  over 
the  sea  and  over  the  land,  and  in  every  wind  under  the  whole  Heavens,  that  other  senti- 
ment, dear  to  every  true  American  heart— Liberty  and  Union,  now  and  forever,  one  and 
inseparable  !  • 


29 

NOTES. 


Note  1 . 

Wednesday,  February  21,  1787. 
Congress  assembled  :  Present,  as  before. 

The  report  of  a  grand  Committee,,  consisting  or  Mr.  Dane,  Mr.  Varnnm,  Mr.  S.  M.  Mitchell,  Mr.  Smith,  Mr. 
Cadwallader,  Mr.  Irvine,  Mr.  N.Mitchell,  Mr.  Forrest,  Mr.  Grayson,  Mr.  Blount,  Mr.  Hull,  and  Mr.  Few  :  to 
whom  was  referred  ■  letter  of  14th  September,  1786,  from  J.  Dickinson,  written  at  the  request  of  Commissioner* 
from  the  States  of  Virginia,  Delaware,  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  and  New  York,  assembled  at  the  city  of  Anna- 
polis, together  with  a  copy  of  a  report  of  said  Commissioners  to  the  Legislatures  of  the  States  by  whom  they  were 
appointed,  being  an  order  of  the  day,  was  called  up,  and  which  is  contained  in  the  following  resolution,  vis  :— 

"  Congress  having  had  under  consideration  the  letter  of  John  Dickinson,  F.sq  ,  Chairman  of  the  Commissioners, 
K  Wno  assembled  at  Annapolis  during  the  last  year;  also,  the  proceedings  of  the  said  Commissioners,  and  entirely 
"coinciding  with  them,  as  to  the  inefficiency  of  the  Federal  Government,  and  the  necessity  of  devising  such  fur- 
M  ther  provisions,  as  shall  render  the  same  adequate  to  the  exigencies  of  the  Union,  do  strongly  recommend  to  the 
"  different  Legislatures  to  send  forward  Delegates,  to  meet  the  proposed  Convention,  on  the  second  Monday  in  May 
"next,  at  the  city  of  Philadelphia.*' 

Note  2. 

Extracts  from  Mr.  Calhoun's  Speech,  on  Mr.  Randolph's  motion  to  strike  out  the  minimum  valuation  on  Cotton 
Goods,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  April,  1816. 
11  The  debate,  heretofore,  on  this  subject,  has  been  on  the  degree  of  protection  which  ought  to  be  afforded  to  out- 
cotton  and  woollen  manufactures  ;  all  professing  to  be  friendly  to  those  infant  establishments,  and  to  be  willing  to 
extend  to  them  adequate  encouragement.  The  present  motion  assumes  a  new  aspect.  It  is  introduced,  professedly, 
on  the  ground  that  manufactures  ought  not  to  receive  any  encouragement ;  and  will,  in  its  operation,  leave  our 
cotton  establishments  exposed  to  the  competition  of  the  cotton  goods  of  the  East  Indies,  which,  it  is  acknowledged 
on  all  sides,  they  are  not  capable  of  meeting  with  success,  without  the  proviso  proposed  to  be  stricken  out  by  the 
motion  now  under  discussion.  Till  the  debate  assumed  this  new  form,  he  determined  to  be  silent ;  participating, 
as  he  largely  did,  in  that  general  anxiety  which  is  felt,  after  so  long  and  laborious  a  session,  to  return  to  the  bo- 
som of  our  families.  But  on  a  subject  of  so  much  vital  importance,  touching  as  it  does,  the  security  and  perma- 
nent prosperity  of  our  country,  he  hoped  that  the  House  would  indulge  him  in  a  few  observations." 

"To  give  perfection  to  this  statu  of  things,  it  will  be  necessary  to  add,  as  soon  as  possible,  a  system  of  Internal 
Improvements,  and,  at  least,  such  an  extension  of  our  navy,  as  will  prevent  the  cutting  off' our  coasting  trade. 
The  advantage  of  each  is  so  striking,  as  not  to  require  illustration,  especially  after  the  experience  of  the  late  war.'' 
"  He  firmly  believed,  that  the  country  is  prepared,  eren  to  maturity,  for  the  introduction  of  manufactures.  We 
have  abundance  of  resources,  and  things  naturally  tend  at  this  moment,  in  that  direction.  A  prosperous  commerce 
has  poured  an  immense  amount  of  commercial  capital  into  this  country.  This  capital  has,  till  lately,  found  occu- 
pation in  commerce  ;  but  that  state  of  the  world  which  transferred  it  to  this  country,  and  gave  it  active  employ- 
ment, has  passed  away,  never  to  return.  Where  shall  we  now  find  full  employment  for  (Air  prodigious  amount  of 
tonnage'  Where  markets  for  the  numerous  and  abundant  products  of  our  country  i  This  great  body  of  active 
capital,  which,  for  the  moment,  has  found  sufficient  employment  in  supplying  our  markets,  exhausted  by  the  war, 
and  measures  preceding  it,  must  find  a  new  direction  :  it  w  ill  not  be  idle.  What  channel  can  it  take,  but  that  of 
manufactures  r  This,  if  things  continue  as  they  are,  will  be  its  direction.  It  will  introduce  an  era  in  our  affairs,  in 
many  respects  highly  advantageous,  and  ought  to  be  countenanced  by  the  Government.  Besides,  we  have  already 
surmounted  the  greatest  difficulty  that  has  ever  been  found  in  undertakings  of  this  kind.  The  cotton  and  woollen 
manufactures  are  not  to  be  introduced—  they  are  already  introduced  to  a  great  extent ;  freeing  us  entirely  from 
the  hazards,  and,  in  a  great  measure,  the  sacrifices  experienced  in  giving  the  capital  of  the  country  a  new  direc- 
tion. The  restrictive  measures,  anu  the  war,  though  not  intended  for  that  purpose,  have,  by  the  necessary  ope- 
ration of  things,  turned  a  large  amount  of  capital  to  this  new  branch  of  industry.  He  had  often  heard  it  said,  both 
in  and  out  of  Congtess,  that  this  effect  alone  would  indemnify  the  country  for  all  its  losses.  So  high  was  this  tone  of 
feeling,  w  hen  the  want  of  these  establishments  was  practically  felt,  that  he  remembered,  during  the  war,  when 
some  question  was  agitated  respecting  the  introduction  of  foreign  goods, that  many  then  opposed  it  on  the  grounds 
of  injuring  our  manufactures.  He  then  said,  that  war  alone  furnished  sufficient  stimulus,  and  perhaps  too  much, 
as  it  would  make  their  growth  unnaturally  rapid  ;  but  that,  on  the  return  of peace,  it  would  then  be  time  to  show 
our  affection  forthem.  He,  at  that  time,  did  not  expect  an  apathy  and  aversion  to  the  extent  which  is  now  seen. 
But  it  will,no  doubt, be  said,  if  they  are  so  far  established,  and  if  the  situation  of  the  country  is  30  favorable  to  their 
growth,  where  is  the  necessity  of  affording  them  protection  ?  It  is  to  put  them  beyond  the  reach  of  contingency." 

"  It  has  been  further  asserted  that  manufactures  are  the  fruitful  cause  Off  pauperism  ;  and  England  has  been 
referred  to.  as  furnishing  conclusive  evidence  of  its  truth.  For  his  part,  lie  could  perceive  no  such  tendency  in 
them,  but  the  exact  contrary,  as  they  furnished  new  stimulus  and  means  of  subsistence  to  the  laboring  classes  of 
the  community.  We  ought  not  to  look  at  the  cotton  and  woollen  establishments  of  Great  Britain  for  the  prodigious 
numbers  of  poor  with  which  her  population  was  disgraced  ;  causes  much  more  efficient  exist.  Her  poor  laws  and 
statutes  regulating  the  prices  of  labor,  with  taxes,  were  the  real  causes.  But  if  it  must  be  so  ;  it  ihe  mere' fact 
that  England  manufactured  more  than  any  other  Country,  explained  the  cause  of  her  having  more  beggars,  it  is 
just  as  reasonable  to  refer  her  courage,  spirit,  and  all  her  masculine  virtues,  in  which  she  excels  all  other  nations 
with  a  single  exception— he  meant  our  ow  n— in  which  we  might,  without  vanity,  challenge  a  pte-eminence.  Ano- 
ther objection  had  been,  which  fie  mutt  acknow  ledge  was  be  tter  founded,  that  capital  employed  Mi  manufactur- 
ing produced  a  greater  dependence  on  the  part  of  the  employed,  than  in  commerce,  navigation,  or  agriculture 
It  is  certainly  an  evil,  and  to  be  regretted  ;  but  he  did  not  think  it  a  decisive  objection  to  the  system  ;  especially 
when  it  had  incidental  political  advantages  which,  in  his  opinion,  more  th.m  counterpoised  it.  It  produced  an  in- 
terest strictly  American,  as  much  so  as  agriculture,  ki  which  it  had  the  decided  advantage  of  commerce  or  navi- 
gation. The  coiwitry  w  ill,  (rum  this,  derive  much  advantage.  Again:  it  u  calculatt  d  to  bind  together  more 
closely  our  widely  sprcaded  Republic.  It  will  greatly  increase  our  mutual  dc]>ciidcuce  and  intercourse;  and 
will,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  excite  mi  increased  attention  to  internal  improvements,  a  subject  every  way  to 
intimately  connected  with  the  ultimate  attainment  of  national  strength,  and  the  perfection  of  our  political  insti- 
tutions." 

Extracts  from  the  Speech  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  April,  181ft—  On  the  Direct  Tax. 
"  In  regard  to  the  question,  how  far  manufactures  ought  to  be  fostered,  Mr.  C.  said,  it  was  the  duty  of 
this  country',  as  a  means  of  defence,  to  encourage  the  domestic  industry  of  the  country,  more  especially  that 
part  of  it  which  provides  the  necessary  materials  for  clothing  and  defence.  Let  us  look  to  the  nature  of 
the  war  most  likely  to  occur.  England  is  in  the  possession  of  the  ocean.  No  man,  however  sanguine  can 
believe  that  we  can  deprive  her,  soon,  of  her  predominance  there.  That  control  deprives  us  of  the  means  of 
maintaining  our  army  and  navy  cheaply  clad.  The  question  relating  to  manufactures  must  not  depend  »n  the 
abstract  principle,  that  industry  left  to  pursue  its  own  course,  will  find  in  its  own  interest  all  the  encouragement 
that  is  necessary.  I  lay  the  claims  of  the  manufacturers  entire  ly  out  of  view,  <»aid  Mr.  C. ;  but,  on  general  prin- 
ciples, without  regard  to  their  interest,  a  certain  encouragement  should  be  extended,  at  least  to  our  w  oollen  and 
cottoo  manufactures. 

"  This  nation,"  Mr.  C.  said,  "  was  rapidly  changing  the  character  of  its  industry.  When  a  nation  is  agricul- 
tural, depending  for  supply  on  foreign  markets,  its  people  may  be  taxed  through  its  imports,  almost  to  the  amount 
«f  its  capacity.    The  nation  was,  howevar,  rapidly  becoming  to  a  considerable  extent  a  manufacturing  nation." 


30 


To  the  quotations  from  the  speeches  and  proceedings  of  the  Representatives  of  South  Carolina,  in  Congress,  dur- 
ing Mr.  Monroe's  Administration,  may  be  added  the  following  extract  from  Mr.  Calhoun's  Report  on  Roads  and  C:i- 
nais,  submitted  to  Congress  on  7th  of  January,  1819,  tram  the  Department  of  War: 

"A  judicious  system  of  Roads  and  Canals,  constructed  forthe  convenience  of  commerce,  and  the  transportation  of 
tie  mail  only,  without  any  reference  to  military  operations,  is  itself  among  the  most  efficient  means  for  'the  more 
complete  defence  of  the  United  States.'  Withoutadverting  to  the  fact  that  the  roads  and  canals  which  such  a  sys- 
tem would  require,  are.  With  few  exceptions,  precisely  those  which  would  be  required  for  the  operations  of  war  ; 
such  a  system,  by  consolidating  our  Union,  increasing  our  wealth  and  fiscal  capacity,  would  add  greatly  to  our  re- 
sources "in  war.  It  is  in  a  state  of  war  when  a  nation  is  compelled  to  put  all  its  resources,  ia  men,  money,  skill,  and 
devotion  to  country,  into  requisition,  that  its  Government  realizes,  in  its  security,  the  beneficial  effects  from  a  People 
made  prosperous  and  happy  by  a  wise  direction  cf  its  resources  in  peace. 

"  Should  Congress  think  proper  to  commence  a  system  t>f  roads  and  canals  for  '  the  more  complete  defence  of  the 
United  States,' the  disbursements  of  the  sum  appropriated  forthe  purpose  might  be  made  by  the  Department  of 
War,  under  the  direction  of  the  President.  Where  incorporate  companies  already  formed,  o"r  the  road  or  canal 
commenced,  under  the  superintendence  of  a  State,  it  perhaps  would  be  advisable  to  direct  a  subscription  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States,  on  such  terms  and  conditions  as  might  be  thought  proper." 

Note  5. 

The  follow  ing  resolutions  of  the  Legislatureof  Virginia,  bear  so  pertinently  and  so  strongly  on  this  point  of  the 
debate,  that  they  are  thought  worthy  of  being  inserted  in  a  note,  especially  as  other  resolutions' of  the  same  body  are 
referred  to  in  the  discussion.    It  w  ill  be  observed  that  these  resolutions  w'ereuiHUiimously  adopted  in  each  House. 

VIRGINIA  LEGISLATURE. 

Extract  from  the  Message  of  Governor  Tyler,  of  Virginia,  December  4,  1809. 
"  A  proposition  from  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  is  herewith  submitted,  with  Governor  Snyder's  letter  accompany- 
ing the  same,  in  w  hich  is  suggested  the  propriety  of  amending  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  so  as  to  pi\> 
vent  collisions  between  the  Government  of  the  Union  and  the  State  Governments." 

House  of  Delegates,  Friday,  December  15,  1809. 
On  motion,  Ordered,  That  so  much  of  the  Governor's  communication  as  relates  to  the  communication  from  the 
Governor  ef  Pennsylvania,  on  the  subject  of  an  amendment,  proposed  by  the  Legislature  of  that  State,  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  be  referred  to  Messrs.  Peyton,  Otey,  Cabell,  Walker,  Madison,  Holt,  Newton, 
Parker,  Stevenson,  Randolph,  [of  Amelia,"]  Cocke,  Wyatt,  and  Ritchie.— Page  25  of  the  Journal. 

Thursday,  January  11,  1810. 
Mr.  Peyton,  from. the  committee  to  whom  was  referred  that  part  of  the  Governor's  communication  which  relates 
to  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  made  the  fol- 
lowing Report : 

The  committee  to  w  hom  was  referred  the  communication  of  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania,  covering  certain 
resolutions  of  the  Legislature  of  that  State,  proposing  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  Stites,  by 
the  appointment  of  an  impartial  tribunal  to  decide  disputes  between  the  States  and  Federal  Judiciary,  have  had 
the  same  under  their  consideration,  and  are  of  opinion,  that  a  tribunal  is  already  provided  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  to  wit :  the  Supreme  Court,  more  eminently  qualified,  from  their  habits  and  duties,  from  the 
mode  of  their  selection,  and  from  the  tenure  of  their  offices,  to  decide  the  disputes  a'oresaid,  in  an  elightened  and 
impartial  manner,  than  any  other  tribunal  which  could  be  created. 

The  members  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  selected  from  those  in  the  United  States  who  are  most  celebrated  for 
virtue  and  legal  learning,  not  at  the  will  of  a  single  individual,  but  by  the  concurrent  wishes  of  the  President 
and  Senate  of  the  United  States  :  they  will,  therefore,  have  no  local  prejudices  and  partialities.  The  duties  they 
have  to  perform  lead  them,  necessarily,  to  the  most  enlarged  and  accurate  acquaintance  with  the  jurisdiction  Of 
the  Federal  and  State  Courts  together,  and  with  the  admirable  symmetry of  our  Government.  The  tenure  «t 
their  offices  enables  them  to  pronounce  the  sound  and  correct  opinions  they  may  have  formed,  w  ithout  fear,  favor, 
or  partiality. 

't  he  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  proposed  by  Pennsylvania,  seem3  to  he  founded  upon  the  idea  that  (he 
Federal  Judiciary  will,  from  a  lust  of  power,  enlarge  their  jurisdiction,  to  the  total  annihilation  of  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  State  Courts  ;  that  they  will  exercise  their  will,  instead  of  the  law  and  the  Constitution. 

This  argument  if  it  proves  any  thing,  would  operate  more  strongly  against  the  tribunal  proposed  to  be  created, 
whifcb  promised  so  little,  than  against  the  Supreme  Court,  which,  tor  the  reasons  given  before,  have  every  tiling 
connected  with  their  appointment  calculated  to  ensure  confidence.  What  security  have  we,  were  the  proposed 
amendment  adopted,  that  this  tribunal  would  not  substitute  their  will  and  their  pleasure  in  place  of  the  law? 
The  Judiciary  are  the  weakest  of  the  three  Departments  of  Government,  and  least  dangeious  to  the  political  rights 
of  the  Constitution  ;  they  hold  neither  the  purse  nor  the  sword  ;  and,  even  to  enforce  tin  ir  own  j  udgments  and  de- 
cisions^ must  ultimately  depend  upon  the  Executive  arm.  Should  the  Federal  Judiciary,  however,  unmindful 
ot  their  weakness,  unmindful  of  i lie  duty  which  they  owe  to  themselves  and  their  country,  become  corrupt,  and 
transcend  the  limits  oi  their  jurisdiction,  would  the  proposed  amendment  oppose  even  a  probable  barrier  in  such 
an  improbable  state  of  things  ? 

The  creation  of  a  tribunal,  such  as  is  proposed  by  Pennsylvania,  so  far  as  we  are  able  to  form  an  idea  of  it  from 
the  description  given  in  the  resolutions  of  the  Legislature  of  that  State,  would,  in  the  opinion  of  your  Committee, 
tend  rather  to  invite,  than  to  prevent,  collision  between  the  Federal  and  State  Courts.  It  might 'also  become,  in 
process  of  time,  a  serious  and  dangerous  embarrassment  to  the  operations  of  the  General  Government. 

Resolved,  therefore,  '1  hat  the  Legislature  of  this  State  do  disapprove  of  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  proposed  by  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania. 

Resolved,  also,  '1  hat  his" Excellency  the  Governor,  be,  and  fie  is  hereby,  requested  to  transmit  forthwith,  a  copy 
of  the  foregoing  preamble  and  resolutions,  to  each  of  the  Senator*  and  Representatives  of  this  State  in  Congress, 
and  to  the  Executive  of  the  several  States  in  the  Union,  with  a  request  that  the  same  be  laid  before  the  Legislatures 
thereof.  - 

The  said  resolutions  being  read  a  second  time,  were,  on  motion,  ordered  to  be  referred  to  a  Committee  of  the 
Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Commonwealth. 

Tuesday,  January  23,  1810. 

The  House,  according  to  the  order  of  the  day,  resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state 
of  the  Commonwealth,  and  after  some  time  spent  therein,  Mr.  Speaker  resumed  the  Chair,  and  Mr.  Stanard,  of 
Spottsylvania,  reported  that  the  Committee  had,  according  to  order,  had  under  consideration  the  preamble, ami 
resolutions  of  the  Select  Committee,  to  whom  was  referred  that  part  of  the  Governor's  communication  which  re- 
lates to  the  amendment  proposed  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  by  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  had 
gone  through  with  the  same,  and  directed  him  to  report  them  to  the  House  without  amendment ;  which  he  handed 
i  n  at  the  Clerk's  table. 

And  the  question  being  put  on  agreeing  to  the  said  preamble  and  resolutions,  they  were  agreed  to  by  the  House 
unanimously.  '  " 

Ordered,  That  the  Clerk  carry  the  said  preamble  and  resolutions  to  the  Senate,  and  desire  their  concurrence. 

In  Senate— Wednesday,  January  24,  1810. 
The  preamble  and  resolutions  on  the  amendment  to  thi  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  proposed  by  the  Le- 
gislature ot  Pennsylvania,  by  the  appointment  of  an  impartial  tribunal  to  decide  disputes  between  the  State  and 
Federal  Judiciary,  being  also  delivered  in  and  twice  read,  on  motion,  was  ordered  to  be  committed  to  Messrs: 
Nelson,  Currie,  Campbell,  Upshur,  and  Wolfe. 

Friday,  January  26. 

Mr.  Nelson  reported,  from  the  committee  to  whom  was  committed  the  preamble  and  resolutions  on  the  am<«id- 
me  nt  proposed  by  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  &c.  &c.  that  the  committee  had,  according  to  order,  taken  the 
f aid  preamble,  &c.  under  their  consideration,  and  directed  him  to  report  them  without  any  amendment, 

And  OB  the  question  being  put  thereupon,  the  same  was  agreed  to  unanimously. 


31 


MR,  WEBSTER'S  LAST  REMARKS. 

Mr.  IIaynk  having  rejoined  to  Mr.  Wkbstku,  especially  on  the  constitutional  question-— 
Mr.  WEBSTER  rose,  and  in  conclusion,  said  i 

A  few  w  ords,  Mr.  President,  on  this  constitutional  argument,  which  the  honorable  gentle- 
man has  labored  to  reconstruct. 

His  argument  consists  of  two  propositions,  and  an  inference.    His  propositions  are — 
1.  That  the  Constitution  is  a  compact  hetween  the  States. 

'2.  That  a  compact  between  two,  with  authority  reserved  to  one  to  interpret  its  terms, 
would  he  a  surrender  to  that  one,  of*  all  power  whatever. 

3.  Therefore,  (such  is  his  inference)  the  General  Government  does  not  possess  the 
authority  to  construe  its  own  powers. 

Now,  sir,  who  does  not  see,  without  the  aid  of  exposition  or  detection,  the  utter  confusion 
of  ideas,  involved  in  this,  so  elaborate  and  systematic  argument? 

The  Constitution,  it  is  said,  is  a  compact  "between  States the  States,  then,  and  the  States 
only,  are  parties  to  the  compact,  flow  comes  the  General  Government  itself  a  parti/  ?  Upon 
the  honorable  gentleman's  hypothesis,  the  General  Government  is  the  result  of  the  compact, 
the  creature  of  the  compact,  not  one  of  the  parties  to  it.  Yet  the  argument,  as  the  gentle- 
man has  now  stated  it,  makes  the  Government  itself  one  of  its  own  creators.  It  makes  it  a 
party  to  that  compact  to  which  it  owes  its  own  existence. 

For  the  purpose  of  erecting  the  Constitution  on  the  basis  of  a  compact,  the  gentleman 
considers  the  States  as  parties  to  that  compact ;  but  as  soon  as  his  compact  is  made,  then 
he  chooses  to  consider  the  General  Government,  which  is  the  offspring  of  that  compact, 
not  its  offspring,  but  one  of  its  parties  ;  and  so,  being  a  party,  has  not  the  power  of  judging 
on  the  terms  of  compact.    Pray,  sir,  in  what  school  is  such  reasoning  as  this  taught  ? 

If  the  whole  of  the  gentleman's  main  proposition  were  conceded  to  him,  that  is  to  say — if 
I  admit  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  the  Constitution  is  a  compact  between  States, 
the  inferences,  which  he  draws  from  that  proposition,  are  warranted  by  no  just  reason. 
Hecause,  if  the  Constitution  be  a  compact  between  States,  still,  that  Constitution,  or  that 
compact,  has  established  a  Government,  with  certain  powers  ;  and  whether  it  be  one  of 
those  powers,  that  it  shall  construe  and  interpret  for  itself,  the  terms  of  the  compact,  in 
doubtful  cases,  can  only  be  decided,  by  looking  to  the  compact,  and  inquiring  what  provi- 
sions it  contains  on  this  point.  Without  any  inconsistency  with  natural  reason,  the  Govern- 
ment, even  thus  created,  might  be  trusted  with  this  power  of  construction.  The  extent  of 
its  powers,  therefore,  must  still  be  sought  for  in  the  instrument  itself. 

If  the  old  Confederation  had  contained  a  clause,  declaring  that  resolutions  of  the  Congress 
should  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  any  State  law  or  constitution  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding, and  that  a  committeee  of  Congress,  or  any  other  body  created  by  it,  should 
possess  Judicial  powers,  extending  to  all  cases  arising  under  resolutions  of  Congress,  then 
the  power  o\  ultimate  decision  would  have  been  vested  in  Congress,  under  the  Confeder- 
ation, although  that  Confederation  was  a  compact  between  States  ;  and,  for  this  plain  reason  : 
that  it  would  have  been  competent  to  the  States,  who  alone  were  parties  to  the  compact,  to 
agree,  who  should  decide,  in  cases  of  dispute  arising  on  the  construction  of  the  compact. 

For  the  same  reason,  sir,  if  I  were  now  to  concede  to  the  gentleman  his  principal  proposi- 
tions, viz.  that  the  Constitution  is  a  compact  between  States,  the  question  would  still  be, 
What  provision  is  made,  in  this  compact,  to  settle  points  of  disputed  construction,  or  con- 
tested po,,rer,  that  shall  come  into  controversy  ?  and  this  question  would  still  be  answered, 
and  conclusively  answered,  by  the  Constitution  itself.  While  the  gentleman  is  contending 
against  construction,  he  himself  is  setting  up  the  most  loose  and  dangerous  construction. 
The  Constitution  declares,  that  the  laws  of  Congress  .shall  be  the  supriiue  law  of  the  land. 
No  construction  is  necessary  here.  It  declares,  also,  with  equal  plainness  and  precision,  the! 
the  Judiciul  power  of  the  United  States  shall  extend  to  every  case  arising  under  the  laws  of 
Congress.  Tnis  needs  no  construction.  Here  is  a  law,  then,  which  is  declared  to  be 
supreme  ;  and  here  is  a  power  established,  which  is  to  interpret  that  law.  Now,  sir,  how  has 
the  gentleman  met  this  ?  Suppose  the  Constitution  to  be  a  compact,  yet  here  6Te  its  terms 
:ind  how  does  the  gentleman  get  rid  of  them  '  He  cannot  argue  the  seal  off  the  bond,  no<- 
the  words  out  of  the  instrument.  Here  they  are — what  answer  does  he  give  to  them 
None  in  the  world,  sir,  except,  that  the  effect  of  this  would  be  to  place  the  States  in  a  condi-  * 
tion  of  inferiority  ;  and  because  it  results,  from  the  very  nature  of  things,  there  being  DO 
superior,  that  the  parties  must  be  their  own  judges  !  Tims  closely  and  cogently  does  the 
honorable  gentleman  reason  on  the  words  of  the  Constitution.  The  gentleman  say,  it 
there  be  such  a  power  of  final  decision  in  the  General  Government,  he  asks  for  the  grant 
of  that  power.  Well,  sir,  I  show  him  the  grant — 1  turn  him  to  the  very  words — I  show  him 
that  the  laws  of  Congress  are  made  supreme;  and  that  the  Judicial  power  extends,  by 
express  words,  to  the  interpretation  of  these  laws.  Instead  of  answering  this,  he  retreats 
into  the  general  reflection,  that  it  must  result  from  the  nature  of  things,  that  the  States, 
being  parties,  must  judge  for  themselves. 

I  have  admitted,  that,  if  the  Constitution  were  to  be  considered  as  the  creature  of  the  State 
Governments,  it  might  be  modified,  interpreted,  or  construed,  according  to  their  pleasure. 
But,  even  in  that  case,  it  would  be  necessary  that  they  should  agree.    One,  alone,  could  n(  t 


32 


interpret  it  conclusively  ;  one,  alone,  could  not  construe  it ;  one,  alone,  could  not  modify  it. 
Yet  the  gentleman's  doctrine  is,  that  Carolina,  alone,  may  construe  and  interpret  that  com- 
pact which  equally  binds  all,  and  gives  equal  rights  to  all. 

So  then,  sir,  even  supposing  the  Constitution  to  be  a  compact  between  the  States,  the 
gentleman's  doctrine,  nevertheless,  is  not  maintainable  ;  because,  first,  the  General  Govern- 
ment is  not  a  party  to  that  compact,  but  a  Government  established  by  it,  and  vested  by  it 
with  the  powers  of  trying  and  deciding  doubtful  questions  ;  and,  secondly,  because,  if  the 
Constitution  be  regarded  as  a  compact,  not  one  State  only,  but  all  the  States,  are  parties  to 
that  compact,  and  one  can  have  no  right  to  fix  upon  it  her  own  peculiar  construction. 

So  much,  sir,  for  the  argument,  even  if  the  premises  of  the  gentleman  were  granted,  or 
could  be  proved*.  But,  sir,  the  gentleman  has  failed  to  maintain  his  leading  proposition. 
He  has  not  shown,  it  cannot  be  shown,  that  the  Constitution  is  a  compact  between  State  Go- 
vernments. The  Constitution  itself,  in  its  very  front,  refutes  thatproposition  :  it  declares  that 
it  is  ordiined  and  established  by  the  People  of  the  United  States.  So  far  from  sa  ving  that  it  is  es- 
tablished by  the  Governments  of  the  several  States,  it  does  not  even  say  that  it  is  established 
by  the  People  of  the  several  States  but  it  pronounces  that  it  is  established  by  the  People  of 
the  United  Stv.tes,  in  the  aggregate.  The  gentleman  says,  it  must  mean  no  more  than  that 
the  People  of  the  several  States,  taken  collectively,  constitute  the  People  of  the  United 
States  ;  be  it  so,  but  it  is  in  this,  their  collective  capacity,  it  is  as  all  the  People  of  the  United 
States,  that  they  establish  the  Constitution.  So  they  declare;  and  words  cannot  be  plainer  than 
the  words  used. 

When  the  gentleman  says,  the  Constitution  is  a  compact  between  the  States,  he  uses  lan- 
guage exactly  applicable  to  the  old  Confederation.  He  speaks  as  if  he  were  in  Congress 
before  1789.  He  describes  fully  that  old  state  of  things  then  existing.  The  Confederation 
was,  in  strictness,  a  compact ;  the  States,  as  States,  were  parties  to  it.  We  had  no  other 
General  Government.  But  that  was  found  insufficient,  and  inadequate  to  the  public  exigen- 
cies. The  People  were  not  satisfied  with  it,  and  underto'ok  to  establish  a  better.  They 
undertook  to  form  a  General  Government,  which  should  stand  on  a  new  basis — not  a  con- 
federacy, not  a  league,  not  a  compact  between  States,  but  a  Constitution ;  a  Popular  Gov- 
ernment, founded  in  popular  election,  directly  responsible  to  the  People  themselves, 
and  divided  into  branches,  with  prescribed  limits  of  power,  and  prescribed  duties.  They 
ordained  such  a  Government ;  they  gave  it  the  name  of  a  Constitution,  and  therein  they  es- 
tablished a  distribution  of  powers  between  this,  their  General  Government,  and  their  several 
State  Governments.  When  they  shall  become  dissatisfied  with  this  distribution,  they  can  alter 
it.  Their  own  power  over  their  own  instrument  remains.  But  until  they  shall  alter  it,  it 
must  stand  as  their  will,  and  is  equally  binding  on  the  General  Government  and  on  the 
States. 

The  gentleman,  sir,  finds  analogy,  where  T  see  none.  He  likens  it  to  the  case  of  a  treaty, 
in  which,  there  being  no  common  superior, each  party  must  interpret  for  itself,  under  its  own 
obligation  of  good  faith.  But  this  is  not  a  treaty,  but  a  Constitution  of  Government,  with 
powers  to  execute  itself,  and  fulfil  its  duties. 

I  admit,  sir,  that  this  Government  is  a  Government  of  checks  and  balances  ;  that  is,  the 
House  of  Representees  is  a  check  on  the  Senate,  and  the  Senate  is  a  check  on  the  House, 
and  the  President  is  a  check  on  both.  But  I  cannot  comprehend  him,  or,  if  I  do,  I  totally 
differ  from  him,  when  he  applies  the- notion  of  checks  and  balances  to  the  interference  of  dif- 
ferent Governments.  He  argues,  that  if  we  transgress,  each  State,  as  a  State,  has  a  right  to 
check  us.  Does  he  admit  the  converse  of  the  proposition,  that  we  have  a  right  to  check  the 
States  ?  The  gentleman's  doctrines  would  give  us  a  strange  jumble  of  authorities  and  pow- 
ers, instead  of  Governments  of  separate  and  defined  powers.  It  is  the  part  of  wisdom,  I 
think,  to  avoid  this  ;  and  to  keep  the  General  Government  and  the  State  Governments,  each 
in  its  proper  sphere,  avoiding,  as  carefully  as  possible,  every  kind  of  interference. 

Finally,  sir,  the  honorable  gentleman  says,  that  the  States  will  only  interfere,  by  their 
power,  to  preserve  the  Constitution.  They  will  not  destroy  it,  they  will  not  impair  it — they 
will  only  save,  they  will  only  preserve,  they  will  only  strengthen  it  !  Ah,  sir,  this  is  but  the  old 
story.  All  regulated  Governments,  all  free  Governments,  have  been  broken  up  by  similar 
disinterested  and  well  disposed  interference  !  It  is  the  common  pretence.  But  I  take  leave 
of  the  subject. 


